High Court · 2025

Petition Under Sectlon 24 of the C P C Prayino that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit l'JJ'ii"t""*iii'-ih" Higrt CJurt mav be pleased toto senior civil Judge' at withdraw HMoP No' o' t:t i":ii"i''ii lr'" t E of ,the Familv Court' Khammam Nizamabad and transfer tnl't"'Jt"'tn"e Co''t of iYgo" #;;;;;*plGnt court for"being tried and disposed District at Khammam "' "t; IANO:1O F 2024 petition under sectron i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavittiteo in supiort'o-t't# i"iiti"i' iit" High Court mav be pleased to qrantstayof all furtherp;il;il;il'-irt'ropN,o 4-2of 2024 aswell asall the l-nterlocutorv Applications p"""""J"fi tn"'"il' 9n tI:.I1" of Senior Civil Judge' at Nizamabad, pending tn'ri/"iio"n'oi t'r'" rn"in r|. CMP on the file of this Court' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' CHAVALI RAMANAND Counsel for the ResPondents: The Court made the following: ORDER F I I I i i , HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C. M.P.No.531 of 2024 ORDER: This T'ransfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed by the peLitioner-wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.p.No .42 bf 2024pending on the file of Senior Civit Judge at Nizamabad to the Court of Judge, FamiJy Court, Klammam.

2. Heard Sri Chavali Ramanand, Iearned counsel for the petitioner

3. Notice sent to the respondent to the address mentioned in HMOP.No.42 of 2024, was refurned unserved with an endorsement 'No such person,. Notice sent to the counsel for the respondent appearing before the Family Court is served. However, there is no representation. hence, service deemed sufficient and the mafter is being disposed off, basing on the materiar avairable on record.

4. The brief facts leading to fi_ling of the present Tr.C.M.p. are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 19.02.2017 at Khammam, according to the Hindu rites and customs; that soon after the marriage the \ \ 2 LNA. J TI.CMP.No.53l o12024 petitioner was subrected to cruelty by the respondent for additional dowry; that ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial home; that as such, the petitioner constrained to file complaint before the police and the Police also filed charge sheet and the same is pending before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magishate at Khammam' It is averred that the respondent filed OP'No'2(62 of 2018 ot a) the file of judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L B'Nagar' for restitution of conjugal righs; that the petitioner conshained to file Tr.CMP.No.20 0 of 2019 for transfer of the said OP from the Court of the Judge, Family Cour! Ranga Red'dy District at L'B'Nagar to the Court having iurisdiction at Khammam and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated,23.11,.2021 and accordingly, the said oP was transferred and renumbered as FCOP'No'61 of 2022 on the file of |udge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl'District ]udge at Khammam' However, the respondent filed a Memo dated 11'09'2024 n FCOP.No.61 of 2022 seeking withdrawal of the same and accordingly, FCOP.No-61/ 2022 w as dismissed as withdrawn' b) It is averred that the petitioner filed MC'No'62 of 2022 on the file of II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Khammam' seeking **€#7 -. i i I I I i ] I I 3 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.53l of2024 maintenance and the same was pending. Meanwhile, the respondent filed HMOP.NO.42 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad., for dissolution of marriage and as such the petitioner filed the present Tr.CMp stating that she has no means for survival and she is r:ompletely dependent on her parents; that the distance between Khammam to Nizamabad is about 400 Kms.; that she cannot travel all the way from Khammam to Nizamabad, on each date of hearing, thus prayed to allow the Tr.CMp.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the application would submit that the respondent filed OP.No.42 of 2024, on the file of Senior Civil Juclge at Nizamabad, by giving wrong address that the petitioner was residing at Borgaon Village and further submits that the respondent was filing OPs at different places only to harass the petitioner.

6. k is relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts) 4 LNA' J Tr.CMP.No 53l of2024 t

7. The Horible Supreme Court in NCV Aishutarya Vs' A.S.Sataoana Karthik Shal held as follows: "9. The cardinal pinciple for exercise of powe;t unfur Section 24 of the Code of Cioil Ptocedure is thnt the ends of justice should demand tle ttansfer of tlu suit' appeal or othzt proceeding' L.n matimonial matters' uhereoer Courts re called upon to consider the plea of trnnst'er' tlu Courts hnue to take into considetation tht economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behnttioursl patturn' their standard of lfe pnor to tfu mariage rmrl subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the-parties in eking out thtir tiaelihood and unfur tohose protectioe umbrell'n they are seeking their sustenance to life ' Gitten the prnailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian sociefil' generally' it is tht toife's contteniatce tohich must be looked at zohile consideing transfer."

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aish wdrya's case (zt'd citeil supta)' has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay tn Deoika Dhirui Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil o' Dhitai Sunil Patilz' and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisions such as marritge, diaorce are still taken with tht guidance and | 2027 SCC Online sc 1199 2 (2023 scc onLine Bom 1926) 1 I I I i I I i I I l l 5 LNA- .I TrCMP-No.53t of2024 blessings of eltlers in the family. For a tady to trauel alone for the proceetlings to n Court """" the fate of her rnariage ts Somg to be riecided ,urrrrot ony fu*'o member wourtl rtefnitery be a nLatter o1 ,u' ancern and cause not only physical inconuenience u also emotionni and psychorogtcar irronorni"ru 9 Further, the High Court of Bombay tn piyanka Rahul patil zt. Rahul Rattindra patiV followed the principle laid down N.C.V,Aishwarla,s case (2na cited supra) and Deztika Dhiraj patil Nee Deoika layprakash Battepatil,s case (3rd cited supra), and held IN as follows:- "Tlu un4lyl7irf pinciple gooerning the proceedings under Secti.on of the CpC, is that conuenience of the wife is to be preferred orcr lhe cont,ertience of lhe ltusband.,,

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial ma tters/ disputes, 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. 3 {ZOZ} Sgc online Bom 1982) l1 I i I 6 NA, J T|.CW No S3l of2024 - Further' dae '11. A perusal of record would disclose that principalty the Transfer CMP is filed on the gound that petitioner has no means to sustain herseif and she is dependent on her Parents' distance between Khammam and Nizamabad is about 400 Kms'; and that she cannot travel on each date of hearing' It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent initially filed OP'No'2662 of 20\8 ot:. the file of Judge' Family Court' Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' and petitioner filed 1r'CMPNo'200 of 2019 for transfer the said OP from R'R'District to ICnammam and the same is allowed; that after transfer of the said case, the respondent withdrew the said oP and filed another HMOP No'42 of 2024 at Nizamabad giving fictitious address of Bolgaon Village' Nizamabad DistricU and that in fact the respondent never resided at Nizamabad'

12. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courhs in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, this Transfer CMP deserves to be allowed' :ry 7 ,r.rrr r, ,rr!l!;l.

1.3. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.p. is allowed and H.M.O.p.No.42 of 2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, is withdrawn and kansferred to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Khammam District, for disposal a u..o.Ou.r." *r]n law.

14. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.p.No.4 2 of 2024duly indexed, to the Family Court, Khammam, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anp shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to cosLs //TRUE COPYII S B. REKHA RANI NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge. Nrzamabad. 2 one CC to Sri O.,rriri'nrrrnrillAdvocate 3. Two CD Copies. [opUC] SWPSL _ -:Y-\\, ',:-'iS .:, ,'.,'+t:'" /./<' i.r. lE sEP 2025 I 0 HIGH COURT DATED:08/OTtZO2S I I I I i l 1