Telangana High Court
Smt B. Vyshnavi vs Bandi Sravan Goud on 20 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.472 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner - wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 from the file of the III Additional District Judge-Cum- Principal Family Court, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, to the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present transfer petition are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 17.12.2020 at SPG Grand Banquet, Karmanghat, as per the prevailing customs in their community. Due to the differences and disputes arouse between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband, the petitioner gave a complaint before the Women Police Station, Saroornagar and based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.298 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.127 2 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 of 2023 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar and M.C.No.200 of 2023 on the file of Family Court Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar and the same are pending.
3. The respondent-husband also filed F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 before the III Additional-Cum-Principal-Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally, under Section 13-1(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for cruelty and the same is pending for adjudication.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Saroornagar. He further submits that it is difficult for the petitioner to travel from Saroornagar to Kukatpally to attend the Court proceedings in the FCOP as she has a small kid, who is aged about 02 years and it is difficult to take child along with her while attending the Court, which is at a distance of 30 Kms. Therefore, she prayed to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 filed by the respondent-husband from the Court of III Additional District Judge Cum Principal Family Court, Medchal, 3 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 Malkajgiri District, to the Court of Family Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar. Hence, present petition.
5. Heard Sri B. Karthik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Saroornagar. He submits that it is difficult for the petitioner to travel all alone from Saroornagar to Kukatpally to attend the Court proceedings in the FCOP, and she is not having any income and she has to take care her minor child and she has no male assistant to travel such long distance of 30 Kms. It is further submits that M.C.No.200 of 2023 filed by the petitioner is pending on the file of Family Court at L.B.Nagar. Therefore, she prayed to transfer F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 filed by the respondent to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife has to be considered 4 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 vis-à-vis the convenience of the husband, and therefore, the request of the petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay 1.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband would submit the petitioner left the matrimonial house and her parents were continuously raising disputes, due to which the respondent is mentally suffering. Therefore, the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 on the file of III Additional District Judge Cum Principal Family Court, Medchal, praying for a decree of divorce. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das 2, whereby the Transfer Petition filed by the petitioner-wife therein was dismissed.
9. In order to decide this Tr.C.M.P., it is not necessary to delve into the merits of the case and the allegations 1 AIR 2002 SC 396 2 (2006) 9 SCC 197 5 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 made by the petitioner and the respondent against each other.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Saroornagar, which is at a distance of 30 kms and it is difficult for her to travel with her minor child from Saroornagarn to Kukatpally to attend the proceedings in the FCOP. On the said grounds, the petitioner seeks transfer of the F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 from the file of III Additional District Judge Cum Principal Family Court, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, to the file of Family Court Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
11. In Anindita Das's case (2nd supra), which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grand parents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every visit when the Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi.
6 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 Thus, the ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the Court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out."
12. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are different from each other and thus, the above judgment has no application to the present case.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NCV Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 3 held as follows:
"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's 3 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 7 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."
"10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."
14. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 4, and observed as under:-
"In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to 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
15. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 5 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd supra) 4 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 5 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 8 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:-
"The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband."
16. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/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 as against the convenience of the husband.
17. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner-wife is seeking transfer of the F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 filed by the respondent-husband from the file of Principal Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, to the Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on the ground that she has to attend Court proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 on each and every date of hearing with the assistance of her family members.
9 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023
18. It is also relevant to note that the cases filed by the petitioner against the respondent i.e., DVC.No.127 of 2023 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar and M.C.No.200 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar and Crime No.298 of 2023 on the file of Women Police Station, Saroornagar under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same are pending adjudication.
19. In N.C.V.Aishwrya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties, which raise common question of fact and law and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issue and conflict of decisions.
20. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principle laid down, by Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwrya (supra), this Court is inclined to accede to 10 LNA, J TrCMP.No.472 of 2023 the request of the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case.
21. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 pending on the file of III Additional District Judge-Cum-Principal Family Court, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, for disposal in accordance with law.
22. The learned III Additional District Judge-Cum- Principal Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District, shall transmit the entire original record in F.C.O.P.No.201 of 2023 duly indexed, to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:20.03.2024 fm