The High Court · 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 stay of all further proceedings of FCOP No. 29112024 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Family Court Medchal Malkajigiri District at Kukatpally, Kaithlapur pending disposal of the main transfer petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: Mr. D. Shiva Krishna, S/o D. Rajeshwar, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.5-649, Sangeet Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. AND Mrs. K. Tejaswini @ Samyuktha, Wo D. Shiva Krishna, D/o K. Sathyanarayana, Age: 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.1-96, Vidyanagar, Opp: Court, Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...Petitioner/Respondent ...RespondenUPetitioner -:, - 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 vacate the stay in lA No 1/2025 in TRCMp No 485t2024, dated 1Bt0Zt2O25. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Ravindra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G. Ramya Kumari The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 485 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.297 of 2024 lrom the file of the Additional Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Miryalaguda.

2. Heard Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and G. Ramya Kumari, 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 and respondent was solemnized on 23.06.2019 at S.P.Convention, Venkateshwara Temple Road, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion. After marriage, petitioner joined conjugal life with the respondent and out of their wedlock, they were biessed with two children and one of them is specially disabled child. After the marriage, respontelt started harassing the petitioner mentally and d.?'' 2 physically and unable to bear the harassment of the responclent, petitioner left the company of the respondent in the morrth of March, 2024 and started living rvith their parents at Miryalguda.

4. Later, Respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.291 of 2024, :under Section 13(1) (IA) of Hindu Marriage Act, before Additional Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, for Dissolution of Marraige

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner 1S dependent on their parents ancl has no independent incorne and apart from that she has to take care of two mfu-ror children out of which one child is specially child and in such a situation, it is very clifficult for her to h-avel 180 kms from Miryalaguda to Kukatpally. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition

6. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner further contended that F.C.O.P. filed by the respondent is coming for counter in trial Court and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the matter is transferred from Kukatpally Court to Miryalaguda Court 3

7. Leaned counsel for the respondent contended that respondent is willing to Pay transport and other expenses to the petitioner, for her personal appearance before the Kukatpally Court and further contended that the father of the petitioner is a Senior Counsel in Miryalaguda ancl he may influence the Court proceedings. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aislnoarya Vs. A-S-Satattana Karthik Shal held as follows: "9. Tfu cnrdinnl principle for exercise of potoer under Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is tlmt tlrc ends of justice slnuld dennntl tlrc trunsfer of tlrc suit, nppenl or other proceeding' ln matrimonial matters, ruhereuer Courts nre cnlled ttpon to consider tfu plen of trmst'er, the Courts lmue to take into considemtion the econonic soundness of both tlrc pnrties, tlrc social strata of tlte spouses nnd their behmtiournl pnttern, tleir stmdnd of lfe prior to tlle matiage tnd subsequent tlrcre to and the circuntsfunces of both tle parties in eking out their lit elihood tnd under uhose protectiae umbrelln they are seeking their sustennnce to life. Gizten the pleoniling socio- economic pamdigm in tle lndian society, genernlly, it is the zoife's conoenience ruhich ruust be looked nt zohile con si deitt g tr nnsfe r. " 1 2022 SCC Online sc 1t99 , 4

9. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aislnoarya's case (2',d cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay h Deaika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil o. Dhirai Sutil patiP, and observed as under:- "ln a country like lndia, intportnnt decisions such ns ntnrriage, dioorce are still tnken zoith tlrc guidance nnd blessittgs of elders in tlrc t'nniLy. For n lady to h'nttel alone for tlrc proceedings to n Court ttltere tlt fate of lrcr nmrriage is going to be decirled oitlnut nny fnmily nrentber ruould defnitely be n umtter of concent nnd- cnuse not only pltysical inconz,enience but nlso entotionaL and psychological incomtenience

10. Further, dre High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil a. Rahul Raoitdra Patil3 followed the principle laid down irr N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2na cited supra) ar-rd Dcztika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deoika layprakash Buttepatil,s case (3.4 cited supra), and held as follows:- "Tlt unfurlying principLe gooening the proceedings wrler Section of the CPC, is that conaenience of tle ruife is to be preferred ozter tlrc conztenience of tlrc husbnnd." z 12023 SCC online Bom 1926) r (2023 QSC online Bom 1982) 5 lr1l.. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courbs to the effect that in maLrimonial matters/ disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Cour! the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.

72. A perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner has two minor children and one of them is specially disabled child and moreover she is dependent on her parents as she has no source of income and it is difficult for her to travel 180 kms from Miryalaguda to Kukatpally, along with two minor children on each and every date of l-rearing of F.C.O.P.No.291 of2024.

13. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this Transfer CMP deserves to be allowed. ./ 6

14. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.29-L of 2024, pending before the Additional Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, is withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for disposal in accordance with law

15. The learned Additional Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District eit Kukatpally, shall transmit the entire original record in F.C.O.P.No.297 of 2024 duly indexed, to tl-re Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Pending miscellaneous applicatior-rs, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To,

1. The Additional Family Court Medchal Malkajigiri District at Kukatpally, //TRUE COPY// I! SECTION OFFICER Kaith lapu r

2. Senior Civil Judge's Court at Miryalaguda. 3. One CC to Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G. Ramya Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/PS L w HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 2l06l102i 1rl9 li 14 16 3o ( ,') 'irf 21NB 26 . o/. -iC!lf- o ORDER TRCMP.No.485 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER C.M.P. co6"b f'*