Mrs. Yalijala Sandhya v. Mr. Yalijala Sai Kumar

Petitron Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.5B of 2024 from the Family Court, Nalgonda to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.58 aI 2024, on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Nalgonda, pending disposal of this Tr.C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Venkata Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER *al HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 442 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.l'].No.58 of 2024 from the file of the Judge, Family Court at, Nalgonda filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Sri. P. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnizcd with thc respondent-husband on 30.08.2018 at Bhavani Nagar, Pangal, Nalgonda as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion. After marriage, petitioner joined the company of the resprondent and Iived in matrimonial house for a period 8 months. Thereafter, respondent and his family members started to abuse the petitioner in filthy language. Petitioner's mother-inlaw used to instigate the respondent to harass her physically and mentally FinaTIy on 05.01.2024, unable to bear the torture of the respondent 2 I,NA, J Tr.CMP.No.442 of2024 and his family members, petitioner left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents at Dilsukhnagar.

4. Later respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court at Nalgonda under section 9 of Hindu Maraige Act, 1955 for restitution of Conjugal Rights and the said case is pending for adjudication. After filing the said case also, respondent used to visit the petitioner at her parent's piace and torture her mentally to yield his requirements. Unable to bear the torture of the respondent, petitioner filed F.I.R.No.367 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 85 BNS, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Woman Police Station, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District which is pcnding bcforc lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R.District at L.B. Nagar.

5. lt is further stated that in view of the strained relationship betwcen the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner cannot travei alone from Dilshuknagar to Nalgonda for each and every hearing. Petitioner is dependent on her parents and her Parents are not in a position to suPPort her financially. Hence, prayed to 3 I,NA, J Tr.CMP.No.442 q[2024 transfer H.M.O.P.No.58 ot2024, which is filed by the lcspondent, from the Court of Nalgonda to Ranga Reddy District.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a homemaker and she does not have any incorne ancl is financially dependent on her parents who live on daily wages. Therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel 110 Kms to Nalgonda on every date of hearing. Therefore, he prayed to transfer the H.lvl.O.P.No.58 of 2024 filed by the respondent to the Ranga Reddy Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further' contended that in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial dispu tes, the convenience of the wife has to be considered and therefore, the request of the petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In support of the said contentions, the learnecl counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishuarya Vs A.S.Saraaana Karthik Shal held as follows "9. The cnrdinnl principle lor exercise of potwr under Section 24 of tlrc Code of Ciuil Procedure is thnt the ends of justica slnuld tlennnd the tmnsfer of tlu, suit, appeal or other proceeding. ltt t 2022 SCC Online sc 1199 I i 4 LNl. J Tr.CMP.No.442 of2024 ,.1 nmtrimonial nntters, utlrcreaer Courts are called upon to consider tlrc plea of transfer, the Courts haoe to tnke into cottsid.eratton the econonic soundness of both the parties, the socinl strata of tlrc spouses and their behnuioural pattern, tleir standard of life prior to tlrc nnrriogc and subsequent thereto and the circuntstances of both e parties in eking out tluir lioelihood and under ulnse protectioe unfurelh tlry nre seeking their susterintce to life. Giaen tlu preaailing socio- econonic paradigm in tla Indian society, generally, it is tlrc utfe's conztenience uhich must be looked at zohile consideing trnnsfer."

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishraarya,s case (2"t cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deoika Dhiraj patil Nee Deaika Jayprakash Buttepatil o. Dhirai Sunil patil2, and, observed as under:- "ln a country like tndia, inryortant decisions suclt os nmrringe, dioorce are still taken zLtith the guidance and blcssttrgs of clders h tlrc fmnily. For n lady to trnocl nlone for tlrc proceedings to n Court uthere tfu fnte of lur nLnrriage is going to be fucided uithout any faruity nrcnrber uould defnitely be a matter of concern nnd cause not only physical inconoenience but aLso e nto I io nnl a r t d ps y cl tol o gi cal inconue nie n ce '? 12023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 5 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.442 o[2024

8. Further, the l-Iigh Court of Bombay in Piyankn Rahul Patil o. Rahul Raoindra Patil3 followed the principle laid down n N.C.V.AishTL,arya's case (2nd cited supra) and Deaika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd cited supra), and held as follows:- "Tlrc undcrltlirtg prirtciple goaeming the proceedings undcr Section of tlrc CPC, is thnt conoenience of the unfe is to be preferred ouer lhe corntenicnce of tha husbatd."

9. Thus, thcre are catena of decisions of the I Ion'ble Supreme Court anci other lJigh Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceeclings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband

10. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent from the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, to the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on the ground that she is a homemaker and she is dependent upon her 3 IZOZS SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 6 LNA. J Tr.CMP.No.442 of2024 parents and therefore, it is difficult for her to travel from Dilshuknagar to Nalgonda on every date of adjoumment. Further, for every hearing, she has to take assistance from her family members

11. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case. 1,2. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.58 of 2A24 pending on the file of JuCge, Family Court at Nalgonda, is withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, lor disposal 1n accordance with law

73. The learned Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.58 ol2O24 dtly indexed, to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, preferably nithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7 LNA, J Tr.CMP. No.442 of2024 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Family Court, Nalgonda 2. The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 3. One CC to Sri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUCJ 4. One CC to Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies kirrl,/l)Sl, HIGH COURT DATED:25t0212025 \ {) ORDER TRCMP.No.442 of 2024 ,z', i,r i i \ { : ',, :r ,}i}\ 2t i * ., 1) ALLOWING THE TRANSFER C.M.P. q