Telangana High Court

Smt Sheri Bhargavi , Sahasra Reddy vs Sri K. Venkateshwar Reddy on 13 March, 2024

     HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                        Tr.C.M.P.No.235 of 2023

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking

transfer of H.M.O.P.No.70 of 2021 from the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Wanaparthy, filed by the respondent-husband, to the

Family Court, Mahabubnagar.

2. In the affidavit, filed in support of this Tr.C.M.P., it is

averred that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized

with the respondent-husband on 16.06.2019. While so, on

21.05.2020, the petitioner, unable to bear the physical and mental

harassment meted to her by the respondent and his family

members, lodged a complaint against the respondent on the file

of Women Police Station, Mahabubnagar, and a case in Crime

No.20 of 2020 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-

A, 323, 504 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The petitioner has also filed DVC No.45 of 2021

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar, against the respondent and his family members.

As the petitioner was unable to maintain herself and it is the 2 LNA, J

primary duty of the husband to maintain his wife, the petitioner

filed M.C.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court,

Mahabubnagar, seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

After receiving summons in the said cases, the respondent filed

H.M.OP.No.70 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy, seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the

marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent

on 16.06.2019.

2.1. It is averred that at present, the petitioner is residing along

with her parents at Mahabubnagar. That the respondent is

threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and that the

respondent tried to molest the petitioner and assaulted her

parents when she went to Wanaparthy to attend the court

proceedings in the said H.M.O.P. Therefore, she prays this Court

to transfer the aforesaid H.M.O.P. to the Family Court at

Mahabubnagar.

3. The respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia denying the

averments made in the affidavit as regards the allegation of

harassment against him and his family members. He stated that 3 LNA, J

in order to harass and defame the respondent and his family

members and to blackmail and extort money, the petitioner has

filed the D.V.C. He further stated that he is paying Rs.12,000/-

per month to the petitioner towards maintenance, as per the order

passed by the Family Court, Mahabubnagar in M.C.No.14 of

2021. He further stated that the petitioner is having illegal

intention of causing harm to him. Hence, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

4. Heard Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharthwaj, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri Angothu Nehru, the learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due

to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner is residing with her

parents at Mahabubnagar. He submits that it is difficult for the

petitioner to travel alone from Mahabubnagar to Wanaparthy to

attend the Court proceedings in the H.M.O.P. as she is suffering

with mental trauma due to the strained relationship between her

and the respondent. Therefore, he prayed to transfer the H.M.O.P.

filed by the respondent to the Family Court at Mahabubnagar.

4 LNA, J

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the

convenience of the wife has to be considered 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 Sumita Singh Vs.

Kumar Sanjay 1.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that within one year of the marriage, the petitioner

left the matrimonial house and the petitioner is continuously

raising disputes, due to which, the respondent is mentally

suffering. Therefore, the respondent filed H.M.O.P. before the

Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, praying for a decree of divorce.

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner is making adverse

allegations against him and his family members without any

proof. He further contended that the respondent is ready to bear

the bus fare from Mahabubnagar to Wanaparthy whenever the

AIR 2002 SC 396 5 LNA, J

petitioner attends the Court at Wanaparthy. By submitting thus,

the learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the

petition. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das 2, whereby the Transfer

Petition filed by the petitioner-wife was dismissed.

7. In order to decide this Tr.C.M.P., it is not necessary to delve

into the merits of the case and the allegations made by the

petitioner and the respondent against each other.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at

Mahabubnagar. The petitioner's case is that she apprehends

threat to her life at the hands of her husband and his family

members, if she attends the Court at Wanaparthy. That apart, the

petitioner stated that due to the matrimonial disputes, she is

suffering with mental trauma and depression and as such, it is

difficult for her to travel from Mahabubnagar to Wanaparthy to

attend the proceedings in the H.M.O.P. On the said grounds, the

petitioner seeks transfer of the H.M.O.P. from the Senior Civil

Judge's Court, Wanaparthy to the Family Court, Mahabubnagar.

(2006) 9 SCC 197 6 LNA, J

9. In Anindita Das's case (2nd cited 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.

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."

10. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case

are different and thus, the above judgment has no application to

the present case.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs

A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 3 held as follows:

2022 SCC Online SC 1199 7 LNA, J

"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."

12. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited 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

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 8 LNA, J

member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience

13. 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 cited supra) 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."

14. 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.

15. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that

the petitioner is seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. filed by the

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 9 LNA, J

respondent from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy, to the Family Court at Mahabubnagar, on the

ground that she is apprehending threat to her life if she comes to