Smt. Smt. Achanta Alias Koduru Harsha ... vs Mr. Achanta Pranay Krishna
2024 Latest Caselaw 1168 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Smt. Achanta Alias Koduru Harsha ... vs Mr. Achanta Pranay Krishna on 19 March, 2024

       HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                        Tr.C.M.P.No.16 of 2024

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the

petitioner-wife seeking transfer of HMOP.No.47 of 2023 from the

file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu to the

Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

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 19.04.2019. While so, the

petitioner unable to bear the physical and mental harassment

meted to her by the respondent, her in-laws and their relatives,

filed a case against them which is pending on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, vide D.V.C.No.94 of

2024. The respondent-husband filed HMOP.No.47 of 2023 on the

file of the Principal Senior Judge, Mulugu, seeking a decree of

restitution of conjugal rights.

2.1. It is averred that the respondent and his parents harassed

her demanding additional dowry, abused her in vulgar language

and necked her out of the house and hence, at present she is 2 LNA, J

residing along with her parents at Manuguru. It is further stated

that her mother is a patient and she has to take care of her.

Further, she apprehends threat in the hands of her in-laws if she

travels all alone from Manuguru to Mulugu to attend the Court

proceedings in the aforesaid HMOP. Therefore, she prays this

Court to transfer the aforesaid HMOP to the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

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. It is further

stated that in fact, it is the petitioner who left the company of the

respondent without any intimation along with her belongings

including gold ornaments. He further stated that the

apprehension of the petitioner that there is threat to her life is

false and concocted only for the purpose of filing this Transfer

Petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard Smt R.Deepa, the learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the material available on record.

3 LNA, J

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to

matrimonial disputes, the petitioner is residing with her parents

at Manuguru. He further submitted that it is difficult for the

petitioner to travel all alone from Manuguru to Mulugu to attend

the Court proceedings in the HMOP and the petitioner also

apprehends threat in the hands of her in-laws when she attends

the Court at Mulugu. Therefore, she prayed to transfer the HMOP

filed by the respondent to the Court of Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Kothagudem.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

in transfer proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes under

Section 24 of C.P.C., 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 NCV Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana

Karthik Sha 1.

2022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J

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

would submit that the petitioner herself left the company of the

respondent and in spite of advice of the elders and the family

members, she did not join his conjugal society. The petitioner did

not choose to give any reply to the notice issued to her by the

respondent calling upon her to join his society. Therefore, the

respondent filed HMOP on the file of the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, praying for a decree of

restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel contended that the

petitioner is making adverse allegations against him and his

family members without any proof. By submitting thus, the

learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the petition.

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 parties

against each other.

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

Manuguru, which is at a distance of 120 kms from Mulugu. The

petitioner's case is that she apprehends threat to her life at the 5 LNA, J

hands of her in-laws if she attends the Court at Mulugu. That

apart, the petitioner stated that she has to look after her ailing

mother at Manuguru and as such, it is difficult for her to travel all

alone from Manuguru to Mulugu to attend the proceedings in the

HMOP at Mulugu. On the said grounds, the petitioner seeks

transfer of the HMOP from the Court of Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Mulugu to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya's case (1st

cited supra) 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 convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

6 LNA, J

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

Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (1st cited supra), has been

reiterated by the High Court 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

11. 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 (1st cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj

Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (2nd 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."

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 7 LNA, J

12. 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 case from one Court to another Court, the

Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife as against the

convenience of the husband.

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

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

respondent-husband from the Court of Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Mulugu to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem, on the ground that she is apprehending threat to

her life if she goes to Mulugu to attend Court proceedings in

HMOP.

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this

Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife

seeking transfer of the case.

15. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and

HMOP.No.47 of 2023 pending on the file of the Court of Principal 8 LNA, J

Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu, is withdrawn and transferred to the

Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for

disposal in accordance with law.

16. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu shall transmit the

entire original record in HMOP.No.47 of 2023, duly indexed, to

the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem,

preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. Interim order granted by this Court on

09.02.2024 is vacated.

17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                               __________________________________
                               LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:    19 .03.2024
dr