Telangana High Court
Trikovela Meghana vs Alladi Nihar, on 8 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.412 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer FCOP.No.132 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-
cum-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally to the
Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Komireddy, learned counsel
representing Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel on record for
petitioner and Sri S.Prasad Babu, 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 06.05.2022 at Nirmal as per Hindu rites and
customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she joined the
matrimonial company of respondent at Miyapur, Hyderabad,
however, soon thereafter, the respondent and his family members
started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally on petty
reasons and also threatened her. It is further averred that
LNA, J
respondent filed FCOP.No.132 of 2024, on created and concocted
grounds, for dissolution of marriage before the Judge, Family
Court, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally; that the petitioner filed
maintenance case in MC.No.15 of 2024 before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan and also lodged a complaint
registered as Crime No.386 of 2024 before Bodhan Police Station
under Sections 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and the said cases are pending.
4. The petitioner further averred that she is presently residing at
Bodhan along with her parents and in order to attend the
proceedings of court at Kukatpally, she has to travel a distance of
about 220 kms by inter changing three buses; that there is a threat
to her life in the hands of the respondent if she appears before the
Court at Kukatpally; and that there is no assistance to her to travel
all the way from Bodhan to Kukatpally to appear before the Court
as her parents are old aged. In those set of circumstances, the
present Tr.CMP is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating
the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is
appearing in the MC filed by the petitioner at Bodhan and
LNA, J
therefore no prejudice would be caused to him if FCOP.No.132
of 2024 is transferred to the Court at Bodhan. He further
submitted that a criminal case filed against the respondent is also
pending at Bodhan Police Station, therefore it is appropriate that
the TrCMP is allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
submitted that respondent is ready and willing to pay the travel
expenses to the petitioner whenever she attends the Court at
Kukatpally. Learned counsel further submitted that while
adjudicating the Transfer Petitions, the Court has to see the
convenience of both the parties. In support of his submission, he
relied upon order dated 25.09.2024 of this Court in
TrCMP.No.335 of 2024, whereunder the presence of the
petitioner therein-wife before the trial Court was dispensed with
and she was permitted to file chief affidavit and further ordered
that her cross-examination can be done either through Video
conferencing or by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner at her
place of residence with the expenses of the respondent.
7. The said TrCMP was filed by the petitioner therein-wife
seeking to transfer the case from the Court at Godavarikhani to
LNA, J
Nizamabad and it was the case of the respondent therein-
husband that he is working at Chennai and he has direct train
from Chennai to Godavarikhani and if the said TrCMP is
allowed, it will be inconvenient for him to attend the Court at
Nizamabad, as there is no direct train from Chennai to
Nizamabad and in those set of facts, this Court dismissed the
TrCMP filed by the petitioner therein-wife.
8. The facts of the present case are not similar to that of the
case referred and relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner.
In the instant case, no inconvenience is said to be caused to
respondent if the case is transferred from the Court at Kukatpally
to the Court at Bodhan, therefore, the aforesaid judgment of this
Court in TrCMP.No.335 of 2024 is of no aid to the respondent.
9. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties. Perused the material available on
record.
10. 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
LNA, J
catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High
Courts.
11. 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."
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
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
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."
13. 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."
14. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
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.
15. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is
seeking transfer of FCOP.No.132 of 2024 on the grounds viz.,
that she is presently residing with her aged parents at Bodhan;
that as she has no assistance to travel all alone from Bodhan to
Kukatpally, which is at a distance of 220 kms; that she is
financially dependent on her parents; and that there is life threat
in the hands of the respondent if she attends the court at
Kukatpally.
16. It is also evident from record that the respondent is
appearing in the MC filed by petitioner at Bodhan and also, a
criminal case in Crime No.386 of 2024 of Bodhan Police Station
is pending and therefore, if this TrCMP is allowed, no prejudice
will be caused to respondent and hence, this Court deems it
appropriate and justifiable to accede to the request of the
petitioner.
LNA, J
17. 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.
18. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.132
of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District
Judge, Rangareddy at Kukatpally is transferred to the Court of
Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan for disposal in accordance with law.
19. The Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge,
Rangareddy at Kukatpally, shall transmit the entire original record
in FCOP.No.132 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Senior Civil Judge,
Bodhan, preferably within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
20. 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
