Katakam alias Vadala Sushma, Wo. Ra,iendra Prasad v. 1. Katakam Rajendra Prasad

2. Kakkerla Srinivas Goud, Sio. Not known to Petitioner, Aged about 55 years, Occu. Raghavendra Auto Finance, Jyothi Nagar Colony, Near St. Mary's High School, Hyderabad Road, Jangaon Town and District ...RESPONDENTS 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.98 ol 2024 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimangar till the disposal of the above Transfer CMP and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARRA V V S N MURTHY Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER r-r HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CI.L MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.476 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Court of learne d Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan.

2. Heard Sri K.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondent despite service of noti<:e. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the rnaterial available on record.

3. The Bricf factual matrix of the case is that the tioner and respondent are wife and husband and their was solemnized on O4.O7.2O21, at Venkateswara Devast.hanam, Sundaragiri Village of Chigurmandi Karimnagar District, as per tlte prevailing customs in uniry and soon after their marriage, the petitioner matr:imonial house of respondent and out of their they ,,17s.. blessed with a boy on O1.O3.2O23. It is that. the petitioner was subjected to physical and harassment and was necked out from matrimonial d - that unable to bear the misbehavior, physical 2 LNA,J T.CMP.N,.476 of2024 harassment and abuse by respondent and his farnily members, the petitioner hled FIR No.457 of 2024 before Jangaon Police Station on 18.07.2024. In the meanwhile, respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2024 oo the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for dissolution of marriage. It is further averred that at present, the petitioner is

3.1. taking shelter in her parent's house at Jangaon arrd is financially dependent on her parents and has no means to sustain herself and further, she has to take care of minor child. Therefore, it is difhcult for the petitioner to travel from Jangaon to Karimnagar to attend the H.M.O.P. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Tr.C'M.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the Tr.C.M.P, contended that the distance between Jangaon and Karimnagar District is more than IOO Kilometres and the petitioner cannot attend the H.M.O.P alone with a minor child. Therefore, if the matter is transferred from Karimnagar District to Jangaon, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and further contended that convenience of wife has to be considered as I 7 3 LNA, J T.CMP.No-!76 of202,l against the convenience of the husband in the matrimonial matter and herrce, prayed to allow the present Tr'C M'P'

5. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for thr: petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the szune was followed by various High Courts.

7. The }{on'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishuaryd Vs. A. S. Sara tana Karthik Shar held as follows: " TLe cardinal pinciple for exercise of pouet under Section 2a of th.e Code of Ciuil Proedure is thot the ends of justice should demand the transfer of tlrc suit, appeal or otLer proceeding. In matrimonial matters, uthereuer Courts are called upon to ansider the plea of tra n sfer the Courts haue to take into considerotion th.e economic sozndness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses ond their behauioural pattent, their standard of life prior to tle marriage and \subsequent tlereto and tlrc circumstances of both the I'parties ';n eking out tleir liuelihood and under uhose I 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J TICMP.Na176 of 2021 protectiue umbrella they ore seeking their sustenarun to life. Giuen th.e preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, generallg' it is the wtfe's conuenience ttlhich must be looked at uhile consideing transfer."

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishuaryd's c@se pta cited suPro,), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deuika Dhirai Pdtil Nee Deulka Jagprakash Butaepatil v. Dhitai Sunil PatiP, arrd observed as under:- *In a ountry like Indin, important decisions such as manriage, diuorce are still taken uith the guidonce and blessings of elders in the familg. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to o Court ulrcre tle fate of her morrioge is going to be decided ruithout ony familg member would definitelg be a matter of conem and cause not onlg physicol inconieniene but also emotionol ond p sg cLrclogical inconueniene. "

09. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Ra,hul Patil u. Rahul Rauindra Pati1 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishrr,anSlo's case (3rd cited supra) and 212023 SCc onLine Bom 1926) 3 12023 SCC Online Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J T|CMP.ND.476 of2024 Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4h cited supra), and held as follows:- "Th,e underlging principle gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that conuenience of tle uife is to be prefered ouer the conuenience of the Lusbond."

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hontrle Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Courl, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. I 1. The present Tr.C.M.P is l-rled principally on the ground that the petitioner is dependent on her parents for her survival and she has no means of income and she has to take care of her minor child. Therefore, it is difhcult for her to travel along with her minor child from Jangaon and Karimnagar District on every date of hearing in H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2024.

12. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and \ \ 6 LNA, J TICMP.No.|76 of2021 various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/ preference over the convenience of the husband, this Tr.C.M.P deserves to be allowed.

13. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.9I of 2024 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon in accordance with law.

14. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2024, d:uly indexed, to the Court of leairred Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, preferably within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- P.PONNA KRTSHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimangar 2. The Senior Civil Judge Court at Jangaon' 3. One CC to SRI KARRA V V S N MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 6- /. Turl CD Cooies HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 [8 r[r M i-- i, '. t ORDER TRCMP.No.476 of 2024 TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED t