Telangana High Court
Temburiniker Matam Richitha vs Matam Nikhilesh on 19 June, 2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.NO.49 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.158 of 2024 from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy to the Family Court at Nizamabad, to be clubbed and tried along with F.C.O.P.No.11 of 2011.
2. Heard Sri Kasarla Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mohana Chandra Has, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present Tr.C.M.P., the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 03.01.2021 at Mandha Ram Reddy Convention, Sagar Road, Hyderabad and during their wedlock, they blessed with a male child, however, disputes arose between them and the petitioner left the matrimonial house and is residing with her parents at Nizamabad; that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy for divorce against the respondent. It is further averred that petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also maintenance case against the respondent vide FCOP No.11 of 2025 and M.C.No.01 of 2025, respectively, before the Family Court at Nizamabad; that LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 2 petitioner has no independent income and she is dependent on her parents and further she has to take care of a younger child. It is further averred that the distance between Nizamabad and Sangareddy is above 170 KMs and it is very difficult for her to travel and attend every hearing in HMOP No.158 of 2024; that there is a threat to her life in the hands of the respondent in the event of attending the Court at Sangareddy and therefore, seeks for transfer of HMOP No.158 of 2024 from the Court of Sangareddy to the Court of Nizamabad.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that two cases i.e., FCOP No.11 of 2025 and MC No.1 of 2025 are pending before the Family Court at Nizamabad and the respondent is appearing in those cases and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to him in the event of transfer of HMOP No.158 of 2024 to the Court at Nizamabad and tried together at Nizamabad. He further contended that there is a threat to life of petitioner in the hands of the respondent in the event of her attending the Court at Sangareddy and finally, prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is a Government employee and therefore, it is difficult for LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 3 him to attend the proceedings at Nizamabad, as he has to obtain leave from his employer for each hearing. Furthermore, the respondent is suffering from Inflammatory Myopathy problem and is undergoing regular treatment at Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.
7. In N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."
8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (supra), has been reiterated by the High Court 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 4 of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 2, 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.
9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 3 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (supra), 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."
10. 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.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Nizamabad, which is at a distance of 170 kms from Sangareddy. The petitioner's case is that she apprehends assault by her husband if she 2 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 3 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 5 attends the Court at Sangareddy. That apart, the petitioner stated that due to the matrimonial disputes, she is suffering with mental trauma and as such, it is difficult for her to travel all alone from Nizamabad to Sangareddy to attend the proceedings in the HMOP and that she has take care of minor child. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent is appearing in M.C.No.1 of 2025 and FCOP No.11 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Nizamabad.
12. It is relevant to note that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024 for divorce, whereas the petitioner has filed FCOP No.11 of 2025 for restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, it is appropriate that both the cases be decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. It is specifically represented that respondent is suffering with inflammatory Myopathy problem and taking regular treatment at Hyderabad and therefore, whenever an application is filed for dispense with his personal appearance, the Court shall consider the same.
13. In view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, the convenience of wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of husband and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court the Tr.CMP deserved to be allowed.
LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 6
14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP No.158 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Nizamabad, for disposal in accordance with law.
15. The learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP No.158 of 2024 duly indexed, to the Family Court at Nizamabad within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:19.06.2025 kkm LNA, J TrCMP.No.49 of 2025 7 HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.49 OF 2025 Date: 19.06.2025 kkm