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
LNA, J
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
(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447
LNA, J
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,
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
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:-
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
"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.
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
