The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwaryrt v. A.S.Saravona Karthik Shulheld as follows

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Allabakash Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.497 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed see,king to transfer HMOP.\do.26 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy to Family Court at Ranga Reddy District

2. Heard Sli G.Allabakash, leamed counsel for the petitioner. No representatic,n on behatf of the respondent, despite seryice of notice on hirn. I herefore, the matter is being disposed of b:,.sed on the material available on record.

3. In the affidavit, filed in support of this Tr.C.M.p., it is avered that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 22.11.2020 at Kalwakurthy as per Hindu rites and customs; that out of the wedlock, they were blessed rv. th a boy; that subsequently differences arose between the petitirner and the respondent, and that the respondent and his parents started harassing the petitioner, physicalty and mentaliy, for want of additional dowry; that she was necked out of the matrirronial house in the month of November, 2023; that she also lodged a con-rplaint which was registered as a case in C:.ime No.532 of2023 under Section 49g-A IpC and Sections 3 and 4 I I l I l l l i 2 LNA, J T|CMP.N0.497 oI2021 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women Police Station, Saroomagar, Hyderabad. Apart from that, the petitioner has also filed DVC.No .23 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar. While the matter stood thus, the respondent filed HMOP.No.26 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy seeking dissolution of marnage.

3.1. It is averred that the petitioner has no independent income and she is totally dependent on her parents and she has to take care ofher minor son. She furlher averred that at present, she is residing at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, along with her parents and therefore, in view ofher financial position, she is not lna position to travel all the way from Hayathnagar to Kalwakurthy, distance of which is 100 kms, to attend the Court proceedings in HMOP on each and every date of hearing of the said case. Therefore,, in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Tr.C.M.P. seeking to transfer HMOP.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy to Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, where the case filed by her is pending. -) LNA, J TrCM?.No 497 oI2024

4. Despite service of notice on the respondent, there sno representation on his behalf. Therefore, the averments of the petitioner remained uncontroverted.

5. The underlying principle goveming the proceedingr.r under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeaL or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in a catena of j udgrnents and the same was followed by various High Courts.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwaryrt Vs A.S.Saravona Karthik Shulheld as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Sec;ion 21 of the t)ode of Civil Procedure is that the ends of .lu.stice should de,nand the transfer of the suit, appeal or o,her proceedirtll. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courls are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts l,ave to loke into consideration the economic soundness of both the porties, lltc social strata of the spouses and thetr behaviotral pattern, llrcir standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequen,. thereto and the ctrcumstances of both the par ties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing, socio- economic paradigm in the Indian soctety, generalll, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked al v hile t ortsidering transJ?r. | 2022 SCC Onltne S(: 1199 4 LNA, J T,CMP.Na.I97 o12024

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepotil v. Dhiraj Sunil PatiP, and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to o Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotionol and psyc ho lo gjc al tnco nvenience. "

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Pafil followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Paril Nee Devika Jayprakosh 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 2 (2023 sCC OnLine Bom 1926) i2023 scc frnliile Bom 1982) 3 5 LNA, J T.CMP.No.;97 of2024 lhe wilb is to be preferued over the convenience of the husband. "

9. Thus, lhere are catena of decisions of the Hol'ble Supreme Cour,. and other High Courts to the effect thrLt in matrimonial maLters/disputes, while considering the applicr,rtion for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another C curt, the Courls must give preference to 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 ir residing with her parents at Hayathnagar, R rnga Reddy District, which is at a distance of 100 kms lrom Kalwakurthy. '[[re petitioner's case is that she is complr:tely I I I dependent on her parents for her sustenance and as such, in ,,iew of financial problems and further, as she has to take care ol her minor son, she rs not in a position to travel from Hayathnirgar, Ranga Reddy District to Kalwakurthy to attend the (lourt proceedings in the pending HMOP filed by the respondent

11. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the tight 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. 6 LNA, J T.CMP.Nq.4,7 oI2024

12. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and HMOp.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District, for disposal in accordance with law. 13. The Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOp.No.26 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy 2. The Family court nan6'' t"oJv iiJt'i"t court compound Ranga Reddv 3 il; ;'c to sri G. Allabakash' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies district kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 l ORDER TRCMP.No.497 of 2024 ::::-:5 e, S T,1 r, 0 g APt 2r[5 Z .'?, i-)i :l.t:;'it \\'-.-2/ ='L--r2 ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P.