The ilorr-ble Sr-.rpreme Court in NCV Aishwarltct v. A,S.Saro.aanq Karthik Shcr held as follows

IA NO: 20F 2025 .cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in suonort of the p.iti"ii, it,. iiigh court may be preased to extend tnterim Stav orcter, ort.o bs_db:;bis p"i".o in t.A.No 1 of 2O2S n TRcMp No 93 of 2025, tirr tt "t Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Subramanyam p.V. ,t," ,"ilTncr,rr" ji"porri " The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALI'SHETTY Tr.C.M.P .No.93o 2025 f ORDER: This 'l'rra n sfer Civil Miscellaneous Petil.ion is f iled seeking trarrsl:- of H'M'O'P'No 16 of 2025 from the: Court of St:n i lr Civil Judge, KamareddY to rhe Cortlt of ile of SeniorCi.lil.-IrLrlgeatArmoorofNizamabadDistricL. 2. Hearc,, llri R' Nagarjuna Reddy' iearned c()unr';€l the Petittor Ler and Sri SubramanYam P.V., ie:Lrned c xtnsel for the re sl rcx.Ldent' 3. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are l.hat pe1 ilioner and respo:<1 lnt are wife and husband and their rn arriage was pe r'ol'm :d on 13 1 l '2016 at Armoor' Prltitirlnel ' oined thematrirno:ialhouseoftherespondenta'ftcruedk,ckand they b1t:sr;erl rvith two children who are nou' ege< [ about eight 1'6 41 " rrnd four years; that respondent an<l hir; family members lrirrassed the petitioner physicall'r and rr:ntally ar-rd abrse<] in filthy language and that she rr-as plr1,sically assaultec. and there was threat to her Iife anC tlrr:refore' she lert the matrimonial house and preser tly' she is stafing v,il-it her parents house at Armoor' Pe -itio rer also 2 TrCMP No 93 of2125 LNA, J contended that she lodged a compraint uide crimeNo.495 of 2O2S before the police Station_Armoor and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, respondent filed H.M.O.p.No.16 of 2O2S on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further averred that the distance between Kamareddy and Armoor is 75 kilometers and petitioner has to take care of her minor children and in view of the threat by the respondent and his family members, she cannot travel alone and she has to take assistance of her old aged mother. Therefore, it is difficult for her to travel every date of hearing in H.M.o.p.No.16 of 2025 and thus filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is working as Aaya in a private organization and she has to maintain herself ald her two minor children and in view of threat to her life, she cannot travel a_rone and she has to take assistance of her mother on every date of hearing and it would result in financial burden on her. J l-.\! , I T{MP \)91ql.}A:t

5. On 1-h': other hand' learned counsel lbr the respondent \',rott'lcl submit that distance betwer:n L'ollh 1.he places is i'0 il lometers and except 498-A case rto ( tller Learned counsel for Lhe case is Pr:ndlllg in Armoor' responden- 1ur.-her contended that the respondent is reldy to bear exl)erses of travel and other expe'nses tl be incurred ol the petitioner for attending every dar-e of hearing antl inally, submitted that Transfer (l M I) is devoid of tnr:rits and is liable to be dismissed'

6. The un'lerlying principle governing the ap1;licz'Ltions filed for tt a'r rsf er of cases under Sectio n 24 of OPC is i rrleed well settl:d l:r" the Hon'ble Apex Court as wc'll a s vi tt ious High Court:; itt catena of decisions'

7. The ilorr-ble Sr-.rpreme Court in NCV Aishwarltct Vs A,S.Saro.aanq Karthik Shcr held as follows: "9. Tlut <'ardtnal pincipte for exercise of ptnt'et tstder Secticn 1"1 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is that tlte ends of j tslic:t' should demand the transfer of the sr'it' a pr:eal or otlrcr proceeding. In matimonial motters, tt)hl''reuer | 2022 SCC Chlile Sic 1199 I I 4 f,CMp.N..9J ,/:l!;, Courts are called upon Courts haue b hke':-:*'* soundness of both ,n'n'o spouses and their u.nn,T!_n), ':::;":::;l;f consideration the plea of transfer, the the sociar ";":::;:;: f;i:::;:;,"!:;:"::::,1 parties tn eking out their protectiue umbrella tleg are Giuen the preua ing socio- Indian societs' seneratts, tt is t'thich must be looked at while "ro ,r*" *rthe "r"t.nof,ntose liuelihood seeking tn o economic parad.igm ,, ,o'o'-'f" the wtfe's ..r;:r:,;;';":e considering transfer.,, 8' The principle of law laid dow Supreme Court in JVCi.V,Aishwqryq,s has been reiterated by the High Co Deuiko Dhiraj patil Nee Deuika a, Dhiral Sunil patip n by the Hon,ble ccse (cited supra), urt of Bombay in "Iagp rakas h Buttep ati I , and observed as under:_ l l "In a country like Ind.i such as mariage, orrol' ^u ant decisior^s s.titt.taken uith the suid.ance "ro or""iii! famits. For a tada ,""::'"":::::::;'f" proceedings to a Court , mariage is going to be r r- ;;::;:;" r: :::, ::, fa mtt g me m b e, ;, concem and canlse not onlg phgsical ttte fate of her " '(zo?! SCC Online Bom 1926) 5 l\i, "' TrCMP \o.A3 of )02; in,:otttte n tence but olso emotional tnd ptycLut ogical inconuenien ce" ' g. FurttLer" l-re High Court of Bombay 111 Ptlgonko Ro,hul Po.til u. Rahul Ratindra Paf,il3 follorved lhe down in N,C'V'Aishwo:ryd's case (':ited principle la Ld supra) il111 'Qs')lka Dhltai Patil Nee Deuka 'Iagprakash Buttepatil's r: rrs e (cited supra)' and held as follorvr;:- "Tht trLderlging pinciple gouemin'1 the prccee'c'ings und"er Section of the CPC' is t httt conL'ett e'nce of the ruife is to be preferred ouer th'e cctttrc nktnce of the husband'"

10. Thus, drere are catena of decisions oi th': Hor'ble Supreme CourL and other High Courts to the effe ct that in matrimorriaLl matters/disputes, while consrde'rin1i the application for transfer of the proceedings from 'lne Oourt to anotht:r Court, the Courts must prefer tho conver.t ence of the wile orrrr the convenience of the husband. 1 1. Perus;al of the record discloses that Transfe r C I\l.P is riled rnainhr on the ground that there is threat to life of the petitioner etnc attempts (2023 SCC On were made to kill her, It ,-tn ,not ri, _- B( m 1gB2) 6 LNA. J TrCMP No.93 of2025

4., (r disputed that petitioner has two minor children and she has to take care of them and she is working as an Aaya in a private organization and that she has to maintain herself and her children. Though, learned counsel for the respondent represented that respondent is ready to bear expenses of travelling and other expenses, in considered opinion of this Court and taking into consideration that petitioner has to maintain herself and her two minor children and considering the fact that the petitioner has to take assistance on each and every date of hearing, this Transfer C.M.P. is deserved to be allowed.

12. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light 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.

13. Accordingly, this Transfer C'M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No. 16 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the hle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at .V),f E7 7 Tr(\lP i1 9-l ol 2(.25 l',t.1, J Armoor of Niz amabad District, for disposal in ac cor:lirnce with law.

14. Thc L:ar ned Senior Civil Judge, Kama:redC1., s hall transmit the entire original record in H.M.(l.p.No. L(> of 2025 duli' incexed, to the Court of Senior C.vil Juog: at Armoor of Ni:zemabad District, preferabiy within a perrod of one month I'rc,tn the date of receipt of a copy of this orcier.

15. Pen,1inp1 miscellaneous applications, if arLv. s hall stand clos:cl.'There shali be no order as to cost,l. //TRUE COPY// i SD/. M()I{D. ISMAIL DEPIJTY REGISTRAR 'usECTlt)l! oFFlcER To,

1. The Senior C:ivil Judge, Kamareddy z. in" S"nio, C;rvil .ludge at Armoor of Nizamabad Distrrct S. On" CC to Srl F. NagarJuna Reddy' AdvocateloPuCl 4 One CC to Sri {i rbramanyam P V , Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD C<>Pie:; Kani/gh Yt- HIGH COLIRT DATED:01 1O5t2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.93 of 2025 /',tri ',)\. ,+'\.i I 1HE Sr,17 6 B Jtjil 216 Ii..l oa1gg6 t s( 2 o ALLOWING T HE TRCMP +"Q(nA )q. {tu I I i i i I I I I I I ! i I t i I I