Tlre Hon'blc Strpreme Court in NCV Aislttoarqtt v. A.S.Sarat,ntra Ktrrthik S/rn' held as follows

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Kodad pending disposal of the present Transfer Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 extend the interim order dated 04/'1 112024 granled in TRCMP No.455 ol 2024 until further orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the ResPondents : Sri Mogili Anaveni The Court made the following : ORDER HON,BLE SI(I IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA I\LISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.455 of 2024 ORDER: f l-ris 'I-r.rnsfcr Civil Misccllaneous Petition is Iilccl by thc pctitioner-wife scc'king h'ansfer of ll.M.O.P.No.5 oI i]024 ;-renclir-r1,, or.r thc f ile of Ser.rior Ciivil Judge, Kodad to the (lo I rt of Juclgo, Farnilv Court, [ [r,tl c,ra baci

2. i [e'ard Sri M.Srinivas Redcly, lcarned counst'l for tl-rc pctitioner ancl Sri M.Arraveni, learnecl counsel for thc resl-ronticrrt

3. The blicf facts leacling to filing of the present'L'r.C.NI.I'. arc th.rt thc petiLioncr ancl responrlent at'e lvi[c arrr'l Ir-rsbanc] anci tlrcir irrarrriagL. \\/ns solemnizecl on 03.07.2021 at Hyclerat-racl, accorcling to the I lindu rites ancl customs.; that soon after tlrc tnarriage' tl"re pe1i1166.. joined thc respondent, hor,r,c',,cr', $,ithin a sholt tirnc, tl1c, p1'ti11611c1 !\.as subjected to har rssnrent for aclditiorral clow.r1,; that ultimately she was neckecl r,ut from the matrimonial honrt' by the responclent ancl his p nrents. Thc I petition$r is norv rcsiding with her parents at l-lyrler.abacl ancl pursuing B.B.A (l3ai:helcr of Business Administraticn) at Inciira Z LNA' .I T r.CtlP.No 455 o[)(D4 \ . .:,., .:i: \: l' \: Priyadarshini Wornen's Coilcgc, Narnpally' I-Iyderabacl It is stated that Lhe rcspondent filecl I IMOP No 5 of 2024 on tl-re file of Senior Civil Jttdge, Koclacl, seekirrg clivorce' which js 20() Krns' a\ /ay fron Ilyclcrabad; and that it is cliflicult for the petitioner to travel on each date of hearing lt is further stated that the petitioner is depenclent on hcr pal-er1ts ancl prursuitrg t3 B'A' thus prayed to allon' the Tr'CMP Lealnecl Counsel Ior the petitior-rer apat't flou leiteratillg 4. the avennents mad.e in the application i'r'oulcl subr"nit that as per inshuctions tirc respondent is residing and working at I{yderabad; ancl that in fact, noticc scnt to the lcsponclent to the adclress at Suryapet returned inzith the reason thal: the addressee not resiciing there and hence, prayed to allow' thc petition'

5. On the othcr har-rd learnell counsei for t'espondent would submit lhat she is unable to contact thc rr:sponclerrt atrd shc has no furtlrcr instructions from respotrc{ent' I I 3 L,\,.1, J 'l).( ,1 t' $.1:: ol 2!)2a

6. lt is relcyalt t6 rcf r:r to tlrc uur{eri1,ipg prrinciple ;overr-rirrr: thc procceclings unricl St:ctiorr 2{ of thc CPC sceking transflr of thc case, appeal ol otht r proceetlings, which is crrunci;rtc.ci bv tlrc I lon'ble Suprcrlr,' Court in a catcna of Judgmenfs ancl thc same r^'; \ t.rlllrrr'r:d bt, various [-ligh CoLrrls 7- Tlre Hon'blc Strpreme Court in NCV Aislttoarqtt Vs. A.S.Sarat,ntra Ktrrthik S/rn' held as follows "!). lltt, ttrlittrtl prut.ipl? .[or ttrtist, Ltf pott,L,r urttlL'r \ttiiott 24 o_f tln' Coile ttf ', it'il l)rotrtlttrt is tirtt iltt cttds oJ'jtrstict sl t)n!tl tL'ttuuld tlrc trmts[r'r ol lltt stril, tppenl or otlutr pn,r(dint. Itl tntt!rtnrcti tnrtttcrs. t|lu,rcttrtr Courts nre mlk'd ttllolr ltt t !nsitltr tl!t 1t!c,t o_f tnrtt'li'r', tl.l' l'.ottrls lnt'r, to tnfu itttrt ctttts,rltrnttott ilrt, L,conotttit' s(r/i,r/,r.ss 1tl bollr llt, lnrtic, tlu, soci l ;lnrfu nl titr -sl,trrrst's arri llrir bL'Itttiortnrl yrttltnt, tlrir stnrtdnrl t,i lifc prior to lltc ttrtrriiryt ttrd sttbstrlrrcrtt tlu,rtto nnd tlu, circrrlrsl ltt?s al'bollt Ilt ttrrrlirs ru t,kirtt otrl llu,ir liorlilnnd nni tutdtr uln'sL pntltL.liot tunbrclh tlLL't1 trt srr:kittg tln,tr strstttnncc to lifL, ()iocn llr prcttilittg s(rr',o (,.()//o,J/i. ptrntlignt itt tfu Intlimt socit .t1, gerurdly, I is llt zpLlt"s rortt,cttiL,ttt't' toluch ttrtrst bc lookad nt rultil ' to siltnttg trarrclbr."

8. The princiPlc of law, laid down by the l{on'l,k' Suprernc Court in N.C.V.Aishu;arya's (2"n cited slrprrn), has bccn I 2022 SCqOntine sc 1199 i 4 LNA' 'T Tr.CttP.No.455 ol20)4 rciteratecl by tlie High Court of Bornbay in Deaika Dhirai Patil Nec Dcaika ltyptakash BrLttepatil zt' Dlirai Sunil Patil2' and observed as under:- "In a cortntry lile lnlin., intltorttutt Llccisiorts stclt ns trrnrringc, rlit,crcc are still tnkctt tpith tlttt guidtnce ntul blt'ssittgs of cl,lers tn tlrc t'nnnly. For n lndy l"o tnutttl' otrc for Lltc proccedittgs to n Cou:'t tt'fu rc' tlrc Jttc of lrcr tntrritge is goirtg to be tL:cided utlnut ury fnntily lrtnfutr rL,oritl dcfittitcly bc t nntter of cortccrn au'l ctlttsc ltot ottly piLysicnl itrcotnrtticttr:c hut rrlso (ntuliittttl ttrd psytlrclogicnl ttt' otttt'ttittt' t

9. Iiurtlrcr, tlre I{igh Court of Bornbay in Priyanka Rald Patil a. Rahri Raaindra Patilt foltowed the principle laid clown irr N.C. V.Aislz ruarya's case (2n'l citecl supra) and Deaika Dhirai Patil Nec Dettika layytrakash Buttcpatil's case (3ur citecl supra)' and helcl as follows:- " lltc rrnrlrrlyittg prurcipLe gooenring the prot:eulittgs uttdcr Sectittn of the CPC, rc tlnt cortttenience of tlrc u'i.ft is to ha 1trcfe rrct1oocr tlrc comtenience o.f tlrc IrttsbruLtl "

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effcct that in ' (202: SCC Online Bom 1926) I (202: scc onLine Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J Tr.Cttl'. \'o.4-i5 of )D4 matrimonial matters/ dispu tes, wl-rile considering th.: application fol transfer of tire proceeclings from one Court to arother Court, the Courts must prefer the conveniencc of the r'r i[c. ovcl the convenier,ce of the husband. l1 ri perusal of record would ciisclose that plincipally thc Transfcr CMP is filed orr thc ground that petitioner is pursr-rir-rg her Il.B.A at Ilyderabacl ancl the clistance betrvccr I lycierabad ar-rcl Koclad is about 200 Kms.; tl-rat the petiticner has no indepenclent income aucl she is dcpendent on her parents; and that it is difficult for her to travel all the rva1, from tr lyderabad to Kodad, on each clate of i-rearing

72. Tl-rerefore, in vicw of the aforesaicl facts an-d circumstances and the principle enunciatecl by the Hon'ble Suprerc Cour.t and various otirer Fligh Courts in thc aforesaid judgrnrrnts that the convenicnce of the wife has to bc given priority/ pre ference or.er the convenience of the husbancl, this Transfer CN{P d,.serves to be allowecl 1 \ 6 l.i'1,./ Tr.CttP.lo.4i5 of )Da T

13. Accordingly, this 'l.ransfcr C.M.P. is allowed and I I.M.O.l'].No.5 of 2024 Perlding on thc file of Serrior Civil Juclgc at Koclad, is witirdrawn ancl trarrsfct't ccl to the Coult of Juclgc, Far-nily Cottrt at l-lyderabad, fol disposal in accordanr:e with law.

14. The Court of Senior Civil Jucige, Koclad, shall ttansmit tl're t-'ntire otiginal record in II M'o l'] N o 5 of 2024 dul-\' inclexecl' to thc Family Court, I lyderabad, p-rrcfcrably rvitl-rin a period of orre month fronr thc r]ate of reccipt of a copY of this orcier. Pcr-rding miscellaneous applications, lf any, shall stand closed. There shall be no ordel as to costs SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I I ,TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To, The Senior Civil Judge, Kodad The Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri Mogili Anaveni, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 J 4 5 Svs/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 --i':: ==- --..- '.,(t i tlF- i .,, --.. 'c r-\ (!' 1 10 str 206 J:, , -.,S ;t,) il r \-* \.rr: .l' Li .,/ ORDER TRCMP.No.455 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE TRCMP 1<o/ d\t