✦ High Court of India · 08 Jul 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 08 Jul 2025

H**=;*ffi :l*;iI'5ffi f il}.tifi ''il::lffi Mada su Srinivas, S/o Madasu Chinna Siddaiah, Ag ed about 48 Years' Occ..ASt' Border SecuritY Force, KoraPut, Andra-Or issa Border Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. PraYing that in the circu mstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be Pleased to withdraw the O.P.No.271202 4 on the file of the Honble Senior Civil Judge, Janag on FamilY Cou(' and transfe r to Honble PrinciPal District and Session Judge- cum- FamilY Court' Medchal- MalkajgiriD istrict IA NO 10F2025 that in the d in suPPort of the Petition, th.e of all further Proceedings tn rant staY on'ble Senior Civil Judge file of H High Janagoan, Janagoan District Pending disP osal of the Present transfer H.M.o.P.No. 2112023 Petition under Section 151 CPC Prayrng n the affidavit fite mstances stated i Court maY be Pleased to g on the ...RESP ONDENT CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the ResPondents: :SRI. K AMARNATH REDDY SRIPRBHARATHKUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER , --.-.--- 'l HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.9 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.p.No.27 of 2024pending on the file of Senior Civil /udge, Janagaon, Janagaon District, to the Court of prl.Dish.ict and Sessions Judge_cum_Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri Disrrict

2. Heard Mr.M.Karthik representing Sri K.Amarnath Reclcly, counsel on record for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondent despite entering appearance. Hence, the mafter is being disposed off basing on the materiar availabre on record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present .l.r.C.M.p. that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on -i4.OS.2OO4 at Srikrishna Matham, 146, Dhanalakshmi Co_operative Society, Mahendra Hills, East Maredpally, Secunderabacl, as per Hindu rites ancl customs. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter who is now aged about 19 years. The respondent is ') LNA, J Tr'CMP No'9 of 2025 Janagaon iir Border Security Force at filed OP.No'27 of 2024 on the file of District' seeking working as Assistant Sub-lnspector Koraput' The respondent senior Civil Judge' Janagaon' dissolution of marriage' It is averred that petitioner is living with her daughter who is pursuing u'"..:':.::::"'",,]":"':' Hyderabad and she is suffering with senot underwent several surgeries d'ue to abortions and for delivery; that her daughter is su{fering with Epilepsy ancl has health issues and she has to take care of her daughter; that she cannot travel alone due to her health condition' thus prayed to allow the TT.CMP'

4. Learned Counsel for the petidoner apart from reiterati'ng the averrnents made in the affidavit would further submit that the respondent is working as ASI in Border Security Force at Koraput and therefore if the OP is transferred from Janagaon District' no preiudice would be caused to respondent' hence' prayed to transfer OP'No'27 of 2024 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge' Janagaon to Prl'District and Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court' Medchal-Malkai giri District' to Malkaigiri ___.-_ '}.' 3 t_\,.1 .r 'rr CMP.No.o ul )025

5. It is also relevant to refer to the underlying pnnciple governing the ploccedings under Sec{ion 24 ol rheCpC seeking translbr of the case' appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon,ble Suprerne Courl in a catena ofjudgments and the same was fbllowed by varioLrs High Courts.

6. The Iearned counsel for the petitioner reliecl upon the Hon'ble Supreme Couri in NCV Aishuarya Vs. A.S.Sarattana Kartlik Shal held. as foliows: "9 71rc cnrrrinnr principre for exercise of pouter under section 24 of the Cofu of Cioil procetlure is that the ends of justice slnuld dernnrtd tlrc transfer of tfu suit, appenl or other proceeding. In nntrinoninl mntters, toherezrcr Courts are cnlled upon to consider the plen of trnnsfer, the Courts hmv to take into considerttton the economic sottndness of both the partics, the socinl strntn oJ the spoust,s nrd Llrcir behnuioural pattern, their standard of life prior to tlrc nnrringe tnd subsequent thereto and tlu circuntstnttces of botlt the pnrties tn eking otrt their liz,eLihood nnd undtr ruhose protectit,c tunbreLln tlrcy nre seeking tfuir sustenance to life. Gioen tlu Ttreoniling socio- economic parntlign in the tndian society, generaLLy, it is the uife's conoenience uhich must be looked at zohib considering I ro nsfe r." \ 2022 sccffitii'" sc rrsg 4 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No'9 of 2025 \ !l 7 Court in N.C.V.AishwarYa's The principle of law laid down by the I lon b1e Supreme case (2,d cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deoika Dhirai Patil Nee Deoika layprakash Buttepatil a' Dhitai Sunil Patil2' and observed as under:- "In a countty Like India' important decisiotts suclt ts marriage, diuorce qre still taken uith the guidrLnce and Alessings of elders in the family For a latiy to trarel tlone for tlte proceedittgs to a Court ulrcrc the fate of hu n orriog' is going to be decitled tt'ithout any t'amily nrember toould deftr"-:;ely be a mattet of concern tnd cause flot only physical inconaenience but tlso e mo I i o n al o nd p sychclo gi cal i nc o nue n ie n cr

8. Further, the High Ccurt of Bombay in Priyanka Ralul Patil zt. Rahul Raoinilta Patil3 followed the principle iaid down inN.C.V.AisIruatya,scase(2ndcitedsupra)andDeaikaDhiraj Patil Nee Deztika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3"r cited supra)' and held as follows:- "The untlerlying principle goaerning tht proceedings under Section of tfu CPC, is that conaenience of the zoife is to be preferred oaer the anaenience of the husbantl " 2 f2023 SCc onLine Bom 1926) ' izozr stc onLine Bom 1982) 5 L]YA- ./ Tr.CMP.No.g of 2t)25

9. Thus, there are ca tena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Couris to the effect tha t in matrimonial ma tters/ clisputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband 10. A perusal of recorcl woujd ciisclose that pnncipally the 1-ransfer CMI, is filed on ihe grouncl that petitioner,s daughier is suffering with Epilepsy and as such petitioner cannot leave her daughter, alone, because of her health condition. _F.urther, the distance between /anagaon to Medchal_Malkajgiri is about 95 Kms. and in vien. of her daughter,s health condition, she cannot Lravel all the way from Janagaon to Medchal_Malkajgiri. Hence, prayed to h.ansfer the O.p.No.27 of 2024, to Medchal-Malkajgiri District

17. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principle enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, convenience of wife has to be given priority/preference over the @-.'tr \i;''- convenience of husband and thus' be allowed this Transfer CMP deserves to 12 Accordingly' this lransfer C'M P' is allowed and O'P No'27 ol 2024pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge' Janagaon' r,rrithdrawn and transferred to the Court of Prl'District and District' Court' Medchal-Malkaigiri Sessions Judge-cum-Family for disposal in accordance with law' shall hansmit

13. The Court of senior Civir Judge, Janagaon, the entire original record in O P'No'27 of 2024 duly ildexed' to the Court of Prl'District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Medchal-Malkaigiri District ' preterably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Court' Pendingmiscellaneousapplications,ifany,shallstand ciosed. There shall be no order as to costs' Sd/- V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFI CER I I 1 To, 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Janagon Family court. 2. The Principal District and Session Judge --cum- Family Court, IVledchal-tVlalkajgiri District.

3. One CC to SRl. K AIVIARNATH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. P R BHARATH KUIVAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies n 1i(fr i t e ) o !) '/06 15 SEP ) t, \ 9e sPrt r_D HIGH COURT DATED:08/07t2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.g of 2025 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER G.M.P. r q \s L\ $

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments