Pasagadi Srivani v. Pasagadi Sriman Narayana

Petition under Section 151 CPC pray g that in the circumstances stated in e High Court may be pleased to grant 2 of 2024 from the file of the Senior f this Transfer Petition. the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t stay of all further proceedings in O. P. No. Civil Judge at Sangareddy pending disposal Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI R MANG LAL Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER v t, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 550 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.92 of 2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy to the Court of Senior civil |udge at Godavarikhani, Peddapally District

2. Heard Sri R.Mangulal, Iearned counsel for the petitioner. Notice sent to the respondent to the address mentioned in HMOP.No.92 of 2024, was returned unserved with an endorsement 'Addressee Left'. Notice sent to the counsel (or the respondent appearing before the Family Court is served. However, there is no representation. Hence, notice sent to the respondent is deemed sufficient and the matter is being disposed off, basing on the material available on record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present l"r.C.M.P. are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 79.04.2079 at Laxminarsimha Swamy T'emple, Thirupathi, Chittoor Dishict, according to the 2 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.550 o12024 Hindu rites and customs; that soo after the marriage the petitioner and respondent lived ha pily for a period of six months; that thereafter, the peti 10ner was subjected harassment for additional dowry; as uch the petitioner came to her parents house; that meanwhile th petitioner gave birth to a baby boy on27.09.2020 at Godavarikh ni; that the respondent did not take her back to the matrimoni house; and as such, the petitioner filed MC.No.24 ot 2024 I r maintenance before the Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhan ; and that the respondent filed HMOP.No.92 of 2024 betore e Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, seeking dissolution of m rriage. It is further averred that petitioner is apprehending threa from the respondent and she was attacked by the respondent w en she attended hearing in HMOP.No.92 of 2024. Further, the distance between Godavarikhani and Sangareddy is 25 kms. and it is difficult for her to travel along with her mino child, all the way from Godavarikhani to Sangareddy.

4. It is also relevant to refer to the nderlying principle goveming the proceedings under Section 24 of t e CPC seeking transfer of the -------------_.- 3 LNA, J Tr. C lel P.lr'o.5 50 of2024 case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated b5, the Honble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the same was followed by various High Courts. 5- The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishuarya Vs. A.S.Saraoana Karthik Shal held as follows: "9. The cnrdinal pinciple for exercise of potoer under Section 24 of the Code of Cioil Procedure is thnt the ends of justice slnuld demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other procecdittg. ln matimonial nrutters, uhereuer Courts are called upon to consitler tlrc pLea of transfer, the Courts hnue to tnke into considerrtion the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strnta of the spouses nnd their behaoioural pattern, their stnndnrd of lit'e pnor to the maniage arul subsequent thereto nnd the circumstances ol both the parties m eking out their liuelihood and undzr ulnse protcctioe umbrella they are seeking their sustennnce to life. Giten tht preuailing socio- economic parndigm in the lndian society, genernlly, it is tltt torfe's conaenience uhich must be looked at ruhile consideing trnnsfer."

6. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishu.tarya's case 12,4 cited supra), has been 1 2QZ2gCC Ontine sc 1199 r 4 LNA. J Tr.CMP.No 550 of 2024 n reiterated by the High Court of Bo bay in Deoika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deoika layprakash Buttepatil . Dhirai Sunil Patil2, and observed as under:- "ln t country like India, imPo mariage, diaorcc nrc stiLl tnken blessings of elders in tlu fn tlone for tle proceedings to n her mariage is going to be de member u,ould defnitely be n not only physicnl in tant decisions such ns uith the guidance nnd mil . For a lndy to traoel urt ruhere the fate of d toithout nny family tter of concern nnd ntsenienct but also emotional and p syclological in nuentefice 7 Further, the High Court of ombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil a. Rahul Raaindra Patil3 Iollo d the principle laid down rn N.C.V.Aishuarya's case (2"d cite supra) and Deoika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Butt' atil's case (3.4 cited supra), and held as follows:- "The undzrlying pinciple gottern ng the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is thnt cont funce of tle ruife is to be preferred ooer tle conuenience of husband."

8. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High urts to the effect that in 2 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) I (Z0FSS€ online Bom 1982i - 5 Li\:A. I j j() of 20:1 T1.CMP-No' matrimonial matters/ disPutes' while considering the applicatton for ffans(er of the proceedings from one Court to another Court' the Courts must prefer the convenience of the *i1" ('1'g1 the convenience of the husband' 9. A perusal of record would disclose that principally the Transfer CMP is filed on the ground that petitioner has to take care of her small child aged about 4 years and that the distance between Godavarikhani *t *"t::j:^i:-rt ;";".': therefore,shecannottravelalongwithminorc is apprehending threat to her life in the hands of the respondent since she was attacked by the respondent when she attended for hearing in HMOP No g2ot2024' 10. Therefore' in view of the aforesaid facLs and circumstances and the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High CourG in the aforesaid iudgments convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be glven priority/ preference over the convenience of that the this Transfer CMP deserves to be allowed' respondent/husband' I I I I I 6 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.550 of 2024 .- ^Y*I .\ 7-L. Accordinglp this Transfe C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.92 of 2024 pending o the file of Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior civil ludge at Godavar Peddapally Dishicr, for disposal in accordance with law.

72. The Court of Senior Civil Jud , Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O. No.92 of 2024 driy indexed, to the Court of Senior civil Judge a Godavarikhani, Peddapally DistricL preferably within a period o one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous appl ations, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to c Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE CO Yil SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J 4 The Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy The Senior Civil Judge at Godavarikh One CC to Sri R Mangulal, Advocate I Two CD Copies ni, Peddapally District UC] SM/PS ;:. HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712025 {riE S14f q. (c (( 11IUB M a I ^.,t,t, t\ ) * ORDER TR.C.M.P.No.550 of 2024 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION