The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwurya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shatheld as follows

...Respo.ndents Petition Under section 24 0f the c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired rherewirh, the High c"r,r;;;b" j.I*Ji"'ir'J""", Z02O pending on the fite or tne-Uon;OL principb CiriiJ;;;;r, ?V9 9? -o-f Judicial Magistrate of First.crass (Juvenire court), Murugu District to the Hon,bre lV Judicial First-crass Magistrate, karpatnaru Fa#ity court, Hycrerabad District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the puiition, in" iigt court may be phased to dispense with filing of the certrfied copy of t" pulition and counter in DVC. 03 of 2020 pending on the file of the^ Hon'Ote erir"i6" Civil Judge_Crr_JrO*rf Magistrate of First crass (Juvenire court), Murugu-district, at this;tag€. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under :section 151 cPC praying thal in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petiiion, the High Court m a-y be pleased stay ,tl tr.tf,., proceedings in DVC'No.Oi ot 2020 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Friniiple iirit .trOgJ,Cum-Judiciat Magistrate of First Class (Jur,'enile Court), Mulugu District bayed pending disposal of the Tr' Clr/P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nooty Vasista Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ch. Venugopalachary The Court made the following: ORDER .i 7/ IION'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRAN FER CIVIL MTSCELLANEOUS PE TITION No.484 o f2024 s ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed seeking to transfer DVC.No.3 of 2020 on the lrle of the principal Civil Judge_ cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Mulugu to the Court of IV Judicial Magistrate o[ First Class, Kalpatharu Family Court, Hyderabad. 2' Heard Sri Nooty vasista venkateswarru, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Venugopalachary,learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the wife ofrespondent No.l and respondent No.2 is elder brother of respondent No. l. 4. In the affidavit, filed in support of this Tr.C.M.p., it is averred that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 01.06.2005 and she joined the marrimonial house. However, she was ill-treated and unable to bear the physical harassment and abuse by respondent No.2, who is elder brother of her husband, and his lamily members, for her safety, the petitioner left the matrimonial company o[ respondent No. I and 2 LNA, J TrcltlP. vo.lEl 0I2021 filed DVC.No.\ of 2020 and MC.No.5 of 2020 on th': file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Mulugir'

4.1. lt is firrther avelred that at present, she is taking shelter in her brother's house in Hyderabad and is financially dependent on him; that she was diagnosed with mind stroke and nas been taking treatment at Hyderabad and as such, she cannot tri'''vel by public transport and has to necessarily take a cab evenr 'ime to travel from I{yderabad to Mulugu to attend the Court proceedings at Mulugu, which is burdensome on her brolher' In those set o[ circumstances, the petitioner filed the l]resent Tr.C.M.I'}. 5- Leam,:d counsel for the petitioner apart from the averments rLade in the affidavit had contended ttrat prcscLrtlir' the petitioner is residing with her brother at Hyderaba,J and is financiaily dependant on him and also ln view ol health condition, it is difficult for the petitioner to tra,.,e I lrom I{yderabad r.o Mulugu to attend the pending cases. Ile lurther submitted that earlier, vide orders, dated 05.02.2025. t'rir; Courl has transferre<t MC.No.5 of 2020 pending on thc lilc ol the Principal C ivil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistlate ol- ["i 'sr Class J LNT, J T.CMP.No.lU of2021 (Juvenile Court), Mulugu to the Court of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalpatharu Family Court, Hyderabad and hence, he prayed to allow the present Tr.CMp. 6. Leamed counsel for the respondents opposed the application contending that in fact, the paitioner is only residing in her brother's house at Hyderabad and Hyderabad is not the place of abode of the petitioner and therefore, the present application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court considered the submissions made by leamed counsel for both tlre parties. perused the material available on record.

8. The underlying principle goveming 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 tfie same was tbllowed by various High Courts.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwurya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shatheld as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 gf the Code of Civit proceclure is rhat the ends of justice I 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J Ttt:M P. No.481 oJ 2021 shoula demand the transfer of the suit, appeat or other prot:eeding. In matrtmonial matters, wherever ()ourts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Cot,rts have 1o take into consideratioin the economtc soundness cJ both the part,;es, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattctrn. their standard of life prior to the marritge and. subs,zqtrcnt thereto and the circumstances of both thL parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose pr otective umbrella they are seeking their ststenance to tife. G Lven lhe prevoiling socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generttlly, it is the wife's convenience which must b(: looked at whilt cons idering transfer. "

10. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble ,iupreme Court in hr.('.V.Aishwarya's case (3d ciled supra), tras been reiterated tr1, the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhi.raj paril Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil lrtttif, and obsen ed as under:- ".tt, a countr! like India, important decisiont: st,.< L as marriage, divorce are still taken with tht, guidance and blessings of elders in the famill:. h-or' ,t lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a ('c u t u'ltere the fate of her marriage is going to bt decided without any fomily member ttoulcl de-finitelv be a motter of concern and cause not '12023 SCC OnLrr,€ Bonr 1926) i.r- T 5 LNAI I T,CL{P..Na4M of 2t only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconye nience. " 1 l. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra patil3 followed the principle laid down in N.C. V.Aishwarya,s case (3'd cited supra) and, Devika Dhirqj Patil Nee Devika fayprakash Buttepatil,s case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. "

12. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the apptication for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 13. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking transfer of DVC.No.3 of 2020 on the grounds viz., that she is presently residing with her brother at Hyderabadl rhar as she is diagnosed r (204J SCC online Bom t9B2) 6 LNA, J TtCLt P.No.181 of 2021 with mind str.oke. she cannot travel alone to Mulugu; an([that as she is financially dependent on her brother, taking a:ab every time to atte:nri the Court proceedings at Mulugu has become burdensome to her brother.

14. The Medical reports filed by the petitioner sho,,r,z that the petitioner is suffering with ill-health and has been taking treatment at [lyderabad. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that she cannot travel all alone from Hyderabad to Mulugu and has to necessarily take a private vehicle, ra,hich is burdensome orr her brother. are believable. 15. Further, in the light of the fact that earlier, this Court by orders dated 05.02.2025 in Tr.Crl.p.No.1l3 of 2024 transfened MC.No.S of l0l0 pending on the file of the principal Civit Judge-cum-J,.rdi cial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile:,lJourt), Mulugu to tht: Court of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalpatharu lra-ni[1, Court, Hyderabad, this Court det,ms it appropriate ruul justifiable to accede to the request .rf the petitioner.

16. Therefcrre, in vier.v of the underlying principle en Lrn :iated by the hon'bl,: Suprerne Court and various other High CorLrls in 7 LNA, J T.CMP-No.ttl of 2021 the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the respondent4rusband, this TrcMp deserves to be allowed

17. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and DVC.No.3 of 2020 on rhe file of the principal Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate o[ First Class (Juvenile Court), Mulugu is transferred to the Court of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalpatharu Family court, Hyderabad, for disposar in accordance with law. 18. The prirrcipar civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Mulugu, shall transmit the entire original record in DVC.No.3 of 2020, duly indexed, to the lV Judicial Magistrate ol First Class, Kalpatharu Family Court, Hyderabad, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- V. KAVITHA EPUry REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER Court), Mulugu District. ,| The Principte Civil Judge_Cum_Judicial M ' Iffi.,.iYro'tsff1fl, 3. One CC to Srr Nootv Vasista. Venkateswarlu, Advocate tOpUCl 4 one CC ro Sri Ch Venugopat""h;tJ;";;"'iobuct 5. Two CD Copies agistrate of First Class (Juvenile First-class Masistrate' Kalpatharu Famirv court, Y- HIGH COURT DATED:0 4l03l2025 \ I I ORDER TRCMP.N o.484 of 2024 .a q--t'rl= Sf4 ,.-'c (J II 1 APfl 2025 \.( -,,,-,. .r-- - -:.:-a' ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. +"elt V<.. -(Htz'