Telangana High Court
Raidi Katukuri Sravanthi vs Raidi Vijender Reddy on 8 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.510 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer HMOP.No.65 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli to the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.
2. Heard Sri P.Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner
and Sri P.Devender, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details,
required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner in
her affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, averred that she and
respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was
solemnized on 25.07.2020 at her parents' house at Godavarikhani
as per Hindu rites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she
joined the matrimonial company of respondent and lived happily
for some time; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a
girl child on 11.08.2021; however, thereafter, the respondent and
his family members started harassing her demanding additional
dowry and ultimately, she was driven out of the house on
LNA, J
13.12.2022; that at present, she is residing with her parents at
Godavarikhani and she is completely dependent on her parents for
her livelihood; that she filed DVC.No.13 of 2023 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, and has also lodged a
complaint against the respondent and his family members
registered as Crime No.25 of 2024 under Sections 294-B, 323 and
324 r/w 34 IPC before Godavarikhani-II Town Police Station; and
that in the meanwhile, respondent filed HMOP.No.65 of 2024
before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, seeking divorce, with
all false and frivolous allegations, and all the said cases are
pending.
4. The petitioner further averred that she is presently residing at
Godavarikhani along with her parents and therefore, it is very
difficult for her to travel a distance of about 100 kms along with
her daughter aged 3 ½ years in order to attend the proceedings of
court at Bhupalapalli and hence, she prayed to accede to her
request of transferring the aforesaid HMOP.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating
the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is
appearing in the DVC filed by the petitioner at Manthani and
LNA, J
further, submitted that since the petitioner has got a child aged
3 ½ years to be taken care of and further, as the petitioner is
completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood, it is very
difficult for petitioner to attend the Court proceedings in the
HMOP at Bhupalapalli and thus, prayed to allow this TrCMP.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
submitted that no grounds are made out for transfer of the
HMOP from the Court at Bhupalapalli to the Court at
Godavarikhani, as prayed for by the petitioner, and hence, the
TrCMP is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties. Perused the material available on
record.
8. 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 Supreme Court in a
catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High
Courts.
LNA, J
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs.
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1 held as follows:
" 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."
10. 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 2, and
observed as under:-
"In a country like India, important decisions
such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
LNA, J
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 (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."
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 proceedings from one Court to another Court,
the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife
over the convenience of the husband.
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
13. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is
seeking transfer of HMOP.No.65 of 2024 on the grounds viz.,
that she is presently residing with her aged parents at
Godavarikhani; that she is financially dependent on her parents;
that she has to take care of her daughter aged about 3 ½ years
and as such, it is difficult to travel all alone from Godavarikhani
to Bhupalapalli, which is at a distance of 100 kms.
14. This Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner
seeking transfer of the HMOP are justifiable and therefore, is
inclined to grant the prayer sought for in this TrCMP.
15. Further, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the
aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife
has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the
respondent/husband, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
16. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.65
of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli
transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani,
Peddapalli District for disposal in accordance with law.
LNA, J
17. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalapalli, shall transmit the
entire original record in HMOP.No.65 of 2024, duly indexed, to
the Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District,
preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:08.04.2025
Dr
