Telangana High Court
Smt. B.Sowmya vs Beesu Sainath on 20 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.344 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner - wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 filed by respondent-husband from the file of the Principal District Judge- Cum-Family Court, Malkajgiri, to the Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
2. The marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 24.11.2017 and they were blessed with a female child on 25.12.2018. While so, the petitioner unable to bear the physical and mental harassment caused by the respondent and his parents for want of additional dowry, she lodged a complaint before Women Police Station basing on which Crime No.325 of 2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.1142 of 2021 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, and the same was transferred to the Principal District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Malakjgiri, and renumbered as FCOP No.1302 of 2022.
3. The petitioner states that she along with her minor child is residing with her parents and without their assistance, it is very difficult for her to travel all alone to attend the Court proceedings in 2 LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023 the aforesaid FCOP at Malkajgiri. The petitioner also stated that she filed maintenance case in M.C.No.130 of 2022 which is also pending before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Hence, this Tr.C.M.P.
4. Heard Sri M. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner along with her minor child is dependent on her parents for their survival and it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Malkajgiri in F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 on each and every date of hearing and that the distance between L.B.Nagar and Malkajgiri is more than 34 K.Ms. He further submits that the other cases i.e., FCOP No.906 of 2022 and M.C.No.130 of 2022 filed by the petitioner are pending before the Ranga Reddy District Court at L.B.Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.
6. In Gargi Konar's case (1st supra), which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The only ground made out in the transfer petition by the petitioner wife is that she is a helpless woman fully dependent upon her father and that 1 (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447 3 LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023 her financial capacity is not such so that she can contest the proceedings in Bhatinda in the State of Punjab.
In our view, this is not a ground for transfer at all. The respondent can be directed to pay for her and her companions, to-and-fro and stay, expenses on every occasion on which she is required to travel. The Additional Civil Judge before whom the case is pending is directed to quantify the amount and to ensure that the same is paid to her on every occasion that she is required to remain present in the court. With these directions, the transfer petition stands dismissed."
7. The facts of the said case and different from the facts of the present case and hence, the above judgment has no application to the present case.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NCV Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 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, 2 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023 generally, it is the wife's 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."
9. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 3, 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.
10. Further, the High Court of Bombay in the case of Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 4 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd supra), and held as follows:-
3
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 4 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023 "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband."
11. 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 over the convenience of the husband.
12. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of the F.C.O.P. filed by the respondent from the Family Court, Malkajgiri, to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, on the ground that she along with her minor child is dependent upon her parents and therefore, it is difficult for her to travel from Malkajgir to L.B.Nagar on each and every date of adjournment without the assistance of her family members.
13. It is also relevant to note that M.C.No.130 of 2022 and F.C.O.P.No.906 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Courts at Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereas F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 filed by the respondent-husband is pending before the Court at Malkajgiri.
6
LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023
14. It is also relevant to note that the cases filed by the petitioner against the respondent i.e., F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 on the file Principal District Judge- Cum-Family Court, Malkajgiri, and M.C.No.130 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar and Crime No.325 of 2020 on the file of Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are pending adjudication.
15. In N.C.V.Aishwarya (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.
16. 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.Aishwarya (supra), this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case.
17. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 on the file of Principal District 7 LNA, J Tr.C.M.P.No.344 of 2023 Judge-cum-Family Court, Malkajgiri, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar, for disposal in accordance with law.
18. The learned Principal District Judge-cum-Family Court, Malkajgiri, shall transmit the entire original record in F.C.O.P.No.1302 of 2022 duly indexed, to the Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at 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