Smt B. Vyshnavi vs Bandi Sravan Goud
2024 Latest Caselaw 1191 Tel

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

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

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

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

AIR 2002 SC 396

(2006) 9 SCC 197 5 LNA, J

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

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

2022 SCC Online SC 1199 7 LNA, J

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)

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 8 LNA, J

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

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

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