The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo grant stay of all further proceedings in H-M.O.P.No. 65 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhupalapalli. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI P. CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI P. DEVENDER The Court made the following : ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISTTETTY TRANSFER C [VIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No .510 o|2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer HMOP.No.65 of 2024 pending on the file of th,: Senior Civil Judge, Bhupatapalti to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapal li District

2. Heard Sri P.Chandra Reddy, leamed counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Devender, Iearred counsel for respondent

3. The brief lacts of the case, shom-off unnecessary details, required for adj udication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petilioner in her affidavit filed in support of the TTCMP, averred thal she and respondent are wile and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 25.07.2020 at her parents' house at Godavarikhani t as p'er Hindu rites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she joined the matrimonial company of respondent and lived happily for some time; that out of their wedlock, they were blessr:l with a girl child on t1.08.202 l; however, thereafter, the respon<lent and his family members started harassing her demanding arlditional dowry and ultirnately, she was driven out of the house on 2 LNA, J TrcMP.1,*o.iI0 of 202a

13.12.2022; that at present, she is residing with her parents at Godavarikhani and she is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood; that she filed DVC.No.l3 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, and has also lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members registered as Crime No.25 of iOZq under Sections 294-8,323 and 324 rlw 34 IPC before Godavarikhani-ll Town Police Station; and that in the meanwhile, respondent filed HMOP.No.65 of 2024 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, seeking divorce, with all false and frivolous allegations, and all the said cases are pending.

4. The petitioner fuilher averred that she is presently residing at Godavarikhani along with her parents and therefore, it is very difficult for her to travel a distance of about 100 kms along with t her daughter aged 3 % years in order to attend the proceedings of court at Bhupalapalli and hence, she prayed to accede to her request of transferring the aforesaid HMOP.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apaft from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is appearing in the DVC filed by the petitioner at Manthani and I -) LNA, ,1 TtC)tO,.No_S l0 of 2021 further, submitted that since the petitioner has got a chilC aged 3 /, years to be taken care of and further, as the petit;oner is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood, it rs very difficult for petitioner to attend the Court proceedings in the HMOP ar Bhuparapalli and thus, qrayed to alrow this Trctvtp. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that no grounds are made out for transfer of the HMOP lrom the Coun at Bhupalapalli to the Court at Godavarikhani. as prayed'for by the petitioner, and hence, the TrCMP is liable to be dismissed 7 This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties Perused the material availabtt: on record. 8' t The underrying principre 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 same was followed by various; Higfu Courts. 4 LNA, J TrcMP.No 5l0 of 2024

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice should demand the transfer of the. suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courls are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of lLfe prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto ond the circumstances of both the parties in eking out the)r livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given lhe prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. " l0 The principle of taw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme urt in N.C. V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Deviku Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhirai Sunil Patit, and observed as under:- "ln a counlry like India, importont decisions 9 ^ marriage, divorce are still taken with the 1 2022 SCC Online sc 1199 ' 12023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) ) LNA, J TtcnrD.No.5l0 of 2024 guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel olone for the proceedings to q (-ourt where the fote of her marriuge is going to be decided without any fomily member would definitely be a matter of concern and couse not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and p syc ho logical inco nve nience. "

11. Further,, the High Courl of Bombay in Priyankt Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil3 lollowed the principle lai,l down in N.C. V.Aishwarya's case,(3rd cited supra) and Deviku Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprgkash Buttepatil's case (4th citect supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, b that convenience oJ' the wife is to be preferred over the convenience cy' the hu,sband. " 12\ Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Flon,ble Supreme Couft and other High Courts to the effect ..hat in matrimonial mattersidisputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Coufi to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. ' 1ZOZ3 SCC Online Bom 1982) 6 LNA, J T1CMP.No.5l0 of2024 t

13. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of HMOP.No.65 of 2024 on the grounds v2., that she is presently residing with her aged parents at Godavarikhani; that she is ftnancially dependent on her parents; that she has to take care of her daughter aged about 3 Yz years and as such, it is difficult to trivel all alone from Godavarikhani to Bhupalapalli, which is at a distance of 100 kms.

14. This Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the HMOP are justifiable and therefore, is inclined to grant the prayer sought for in this TrCMP'

15. Further, 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 I respondent/husband, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed'

16. Accordingly, this Tr.C'M.P. is allowed and HMOP'No'65 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District for disposal in accordance with law' ./ 7 LNA, J l-tc lt{ l. N o. 5 I 0 of 2 02 4

17. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP.No.65 of 2024, duly inlexed, to the Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, peddapali Disrrict, preferably within a period of one month from the date of r.eceipt of a copy of this order.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. /4RUE COPYtt SDi- MOHD. ISMAIL pEPU'rY REG|STRAR To, I d=cr ION OFFICER I 1 The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhupalapalli 2 of the Senior Civir Judge, Godavarikhani, peddapaili ;?&3:i" One CC to SRt p. CHANDRA REDDY , Advocate [OPUC] J 4. One CC to SRt P.DEVENDER 5. TwqCD Copies Advocate [OpUC] Pcsd/gh 7 I.i (: \.,() O C') * 1 1 JUL 2025 5\ t /iiTa'.i l ,,...o HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER TRCMP.No.S10 ot 2024 I ALLOWING THE TRANFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION \OF

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo grant stay of all further proceedings in H-M.O.P.No. 65 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhupalapalli. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI P. CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI P. DEVENDER The Court made the following : ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISTTETTY TRANSFER C [VIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No .510 o|2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer HMOP.No.65 of 2024 pending on the file of th,: Senior Civil Judge, Bhupatapalti to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapal li District

2. Heard Sri P.Chandra Reddy, leamed counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Devender, Iearred counsel for respondent

3. The brief lacts of the case, shom-off unnecessary details, required for adj udication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petilioner in her affidavit filed in support of the TTCMP, averred thal she and respondent are wile and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 25.07.2020 at her parents' house at Godavarikhani t as p'er Hindu rites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she joined the matrimonial company of respondent and lived happily for some time; that out of their wedlock, they were blessr:l with a girl child on t1.08.202 l; however, thereafter, the respon<lent and his family members started harassing her demanding arlditional dowry and ultirnately, she was driven out of the house on 2 LNA, J TrcMP.1,*o.iI0 of 202a

13.12.2022; that at present, she is residing with her parents at Godavarikhani and she is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood; that she filed DVC.No.l3 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, and has also lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members registered as Crime No.25 of iOZq under Sections 294-8,323 and 324 rlw 34 IPC before Godavarikhani-ll Town Police Station; and that in the meanwhile, respondent filed HMOP.No.65 of 2024 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, seeking divorce, with all false and frivolous allegations, and all the said cases are pending.

4. The petitioner fuilher averred that she is presently residing at Godavarikhani along with her parents and therefore, it is very difficult for her to travel a distance of about 100 kms along with t her daughter aged 3 % years in order to attend the proceedings of court at Bhupalapalli and hence, she prayed to accede to her request of transferring the aforesaid HMOP.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apaft from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is appearing in the DVC filed by the petitioner at Manthani and I -) LNA, ,1 TtC)tO,.No_S l0 of 2021 further, submitted that since the petitioner has got a chilC aged 3 /, years to be taken care of and further, as the petit;oner is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood, it rs very difficult for petitioner to attend the Court proceedings in the HMOP ar Bhuparapalli and thus, qrayed to alrow this Trctvtp. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that no grounds are made out for transfer of the HMOP lrom the Coun at Bhupalapalli to the Court at Godavarikhani. as prayed'for by the petitioner, and hence, the TrCMP is liable to be dismissed 7 This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties Perused the material availabtt: on record. 8' t The underrying principre 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 same was followed by various; Higfu Courts. 4 LNA, J TrcMP.No 5l0 of 2024

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice should demand the transfer of the. suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courls are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of lLfe prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto ond the circumstances of both the parties in eking out the)r livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given lhe prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. " l0 The principle of taw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme urt in N.C. V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Deviku Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhirai Sunil Patit, and observed as under:- "ln a counlry like India, importont decisions 9 ^ marriage, divorce are still taken with the 1 2022 SCC Online sc 1199 ' 12023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) ) LNA, J TtcnrD.No.5l0 of 2024 guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel olone for the proceedings to q (-ourt where the fote of her marriuge is going to be decided without any fomily member would definitely be a matter of concern and couse not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and p syc ho logical inco nve nience. "

11. Further,, the High Courl of Bombay in Priyankt Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil3 lollowed the principle lai,l down in N.C. V.Aishwarya's case,(3rd cited supra) and Deviku Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprgkash Buttepatil's case (4th citect supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, b that convenience oJ' the wife is to be preferred over the convenience cy' the hu,sband. " 12\ Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Flon,ble Supreme Couft and other High Courts to the effect ..hat in matrimonial mattersidisputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Coufi to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. ' 1ZOZ3 SCC Online Bom 1982) 6 LNA, J T1CMP.No.5l0 of2024 t

13. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of HMOP.No.65 of 2024 on the grounds v2., that she is presently residing with her aged parents at Godavarikhani; that she is ftnancially dependent on her parents; that she has to take care of her daughter aged about 3 Yz years and as such, it is difficult to trivel all alone from Godavarikhani to Bhupalapalli, which is at a distance of 100 kms.

14. This Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the HMOP are justifiable and therefore, is inclined to grant the prayer sought for in this TrCMP'

15. Further, 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 I respondent/husband, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed'

16. Accordingly, this Tr.C'M.P. is allowed and HMOP'No'65 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District for disposal in accordance with law' ./ 7 LNA, J l-tc lt{ l. N o. 5 I 0 of 2 02 4

17. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP.No.65 of 2024, duly inlexed, to the Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, peddapali Disrrict, preferably within a period of one month from the date of r.eceipt of a copy of this order.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. /4RUE COPYtt SDi- MOHD. ISMAIL pEPU'rY REG|STRAR To, I d=cr ION OFFICER I 1 The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhupalapalli 2 of the Senior Civir Judge, Godavarikhani, peddapaili ;?&3:i" One CC to SRt p. CHANDRA REDDY , Advocate [OPUC] J 4. One CC to SRt P.DEVENDER 5. TwqCD Copies Advocate [OpUC] Pcsd/gh 7 I.i (: \.,() O C') * 1 1 JUL 2025 5\ t /iiTa'.i l ,,...o HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER TRCMP.No.S10 ot 2024 I ALLOWING THE TRANFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION \OF