Further, the High Court of Bombay n Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Pafif followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case

"'RES'oNDENT'PETIr..NER Petition Under Section 24 of the C P C ' Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.15 6 ot 2024 ' on the file of the Senior Civil Judge' Kodada' Suryapet District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge' Family Court' Khammam' IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition under Sectio stated in the affidavit filed pleased to grant staY of all petitioner in H.M'O P No l Kodada, SuryaPet District' n 151 of C-P.C , praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition' the High Court may be further proceedings including the appearance of the 56 ot 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge' Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following :SRl. Y KOTESWAR RAO : None APPeared : ORDER HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA A,LISHETTY IRAI.I,FEB : CIVIL MIS CELLANE OUS PETITI 0N No ORDEB: '.7 of 202 4 s: l his 'Iransfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filer1 seeking to transfl:r I{NlOp.No. 156 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge I-odad, suryapet District to the Family courr, K_hammam. 2. H:ard Sri y.Koteswar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitionr r. \lotice sent to respondent through Court rs retumed unservec wilh endorsement ,refused,, whereas the noti:e sent by leamed c oun:;el for the petitioner, as per the postal track record, is delivered tc, the respondent. Hence, the sen,ice is suflicient. Despite ; he r;ame, there is no representation on beha If of the responder Lt. herefore, the matter is being disposed of based on the material a vaitable on record.

3. In rhe affidavit, filed in support of this l.r.C.NI.p., it is averred rh tt the marriage of the petitioner was solemnize,l u,ith the respon derLt on 15.05.2022 as per Hindu rites and cu.;toms; that after ,arriage, the petitioner joined the nrarrinronial company r,f the respondent; that after a period of abou[ five monthsJh 3 r:spondent and his parents started harassin.g the I LNA'J T.CMP.No-527 0J2021 2 petitioner for want of additional dowry and she was necked out from the matrimonial house in the month of Apr\l' 2024' therefore, she lodged a complaint in Women Police Station Khammam, which was registered as a case in Crime No'80 of 2024 vrdersections 498-4 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition; that the petitioner has also filed Maintenance Case i'e'' MC'No'64 of 2024 on the file of Family Court, Khammam against the respondent and DVC'No'57 of 2024 onthe file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge' Khammam' While the matters stood thus' the respondent'' in the month of November, 2024, filed HMOP'No'156 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kodad' Suryapet District' seeking divorce' 3.1. It is averred that the petitioner is living with her parents at Khammam; that as she is a house wife' she cannot attend the Court at Khammam all alone for each and every adjournment of the HMOP and has to necessarily take the assistance of her parents; that she also fears threat from the respondent and his family members, if she attends the Court at Kodad and hence' the present the TT.CMP is filed' ---r" I 1ll , h:Mp.No.s2z :lkrl 4 f tespite service of notice on the respondent. represer tation on his behalf Therefore, the petitiorr r r-r,rnained uncontrovefted. there is no avefinents of the 5 T re ;'rndslryirg principre governing the proceedings under Section l4 c,l'the CpC seeking transfer ofthe case, appeitl or other proceedir gs, rs enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of judllments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

6. T'he Hon,ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwo4o Vs. A.S.Sarawma ,Korthik Shatheld as follows: " Th t caljiaq\ ,rincipte for exercise of power under section 21 o1'the.Code qf Civit procedure is that the ends of juttice shour:l aremand the tronsfer of rhe suit, appeal or other pro,:e.:tlir41. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are callec, upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts liave to t6,k,' into consideration the economic soundness oJ both the portie:, /L;c social s,trata of the spouses and their behat,iot*a/ patter,\ lheir standard of life prior to the marriage imd subsequent lhereto and the circumstances of both lht: pun ies in eki,ry out their livelihood ond under whose ptotective umbrc la they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given rhe prevdi ing,socio- economic paradigm in the Inrjian sot:t,,N. ' 2022 s Onli re S3 1199 I LNA, ) TrcMP.No'527 of 2024 4 generally, it is the wife's convenience w at while considering transfer' " hich must be looked

7. The principle of Iaw 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 Bomb ay in' Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v' Dhiraj Sunil PaliP' and observed as under:- important decisions "ln a countrY like India' such as marriage' divorce are slill taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family' For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Courl where the fate of her marriage is going b be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience "

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay \n Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Pafif followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Putil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepalil's case (4tr' cited supra)' and held as follows:- I z (2023 SCC Online Bom 1926) , izoz: sct online Bom 1982) ) r,Ot,".Nr.sr? :;irl ' The underbting principle g u ttre, section 24 0f the ,l'"'ntrs rr e u'fe is b be preferred thz htrband. ,h" proceeding-s is thol convenience oJ' ver lhe convenient:e oJ

9. Hc,n'ble that in Iication Court, e r vife Thrs. there are catena of decisions of the Supreme C ourl and other High Courts to the ef.fect matrimonial m:l:ters/disputes, while considering the app for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another the Coufts rr ust ,3ive preference to the convenience of th over the convenience of the husband. I 0. In the. I rre_qe nt case, a perusal of the record discloses tirat three cases. i.:., a criminal case registered as Crime No.g0 of 2024 on the lile c,f Women police Station, Khammarn, unjsl Sections 498_2,. an,C 506 r/w 34 IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohiiri .ior Act, FCOp.No.64 of 2O24and DVC.No.57 of2024, which are filed by the petitioner against the respondent are pending al the []ouns at Khammam. While the said mattel; are pending, tht r.espondent in the month of November, 2024, filed HMOP.No l5ri of 2024 onthe file of Senior Civil Judse Kodad. t.NA. ) TrcMP.No.527 oJ202t 6

11. In view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, the convenience of the petitioner has to be given prioritY/Preference over the convenience of the respondent. Further, as admittedly, three cases filed by the petitioner are pending at the Courts at Khammam' it would be just and appropriate if all the cases between the parties are tried by the Courts at the same Station which would be feasible and convenient for the parties to pursue all the cases effectively' 12. In the light of the foregoing reasons' this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case 13. AccordinglY, this Tr'C'M'P HMOP.No.I5 6 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civit Judge' Kodad, Suryapet District is withdrawn and transfer-red to the file of the Family Court, Khammam, for disposal in accordance with allowed and 1S law. 14. The Senior Civit Judge, Kodad, Suryapet District' shall transfiit the entire original record in HMOP'No'156 of 2024' duly lndexed, to the Family Court, Khammam' preferably within \-- 7 LNA, J Tra vP.No.527 of2021 a perioc of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. P:nding miscellaneous applications, ,if any, sh:Lll stand closed. l'here r shall be no order as to costs. assrsfad(r]liJAJ3i[qERE //TRUE COPY// -i\ I I '\,l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Court of Sr:nior Ctvil . 2. The Famir r court xnamnlldge ' i. i'i3 33 5,rll Kodada, suryapet district t K.TESWAR RAo Advocate [opuc] Pcsd/kam w HIGH CCIURT DATED:2TtOzt2OZs ORDER TRCMp.No.S2T of 2024 ( oR lr- t S 1.4 ,( o o t il1 nn zui c Pe -c xr-o * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (t I I I