Telangana High Court
Smt. Karee Pranitha Reddy Arrabyru ... vs Sri Karee Sikender Reddy, on 9 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.55 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of FCOP.No.1605 of 2024 on the file of the Principal
Family Court Judge, at Hyderabad, Kalpatharuvu Complex to the
Court of I Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard Sri Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on
behalf of the 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 Tr.C.M.P., averred that she and
respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was
solemnized on 21.12.2018 at Vijaya Gardens, Champapet as per
Hindu rites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she joined
the matrimonial company of respondent at Champapet, Hyderabad,
however, soon thereafter, the petitioner along with her husband
went to USA and the respondent and his family members started
harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally on petty
LNA, J
reasons and also threatened her with dire consequences. As she was
pregnant, she came back to India for delivery and blessed with a
female child who is now aged about 4 ½ years. It is further averred
that respondent filed FCOP.No.1605 of 2024 basing on created and
concocted grounds, for dissolution of marriage before the Principal
Family Court Judge, at Hyderbad, Kalpatharuvu Complex. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner filed FCOP.No.1744 of 2024 before the
Principal Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,
seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the same was
transferred to I Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, at L.B.Nagar; Domestic Violence Case vide File
No.5654/PO/DV Act 2005 before the V Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate at Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar; and
Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.302 of 2024 before the I
Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar and also lodged a complaint registered as FIR No.437 of
2024 dated 06.11.2024 at Women Police Station, Rachakonda, for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of
I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the
said cases are pending.
LNA, J
4. The petitioner further averred that she is presently residing at
Champapet, Hyderabad, along with her minor child and since all
the cases are pending before the Courts at Ranga Reddy,
F.C.O.P.No.1605 of 2024 can be tried along with FCOP.No.1744
of 2024 is convenient to the respondent. 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 all the cases filed by the petitioner in the Courts at
Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar and therefore no prejudice
would be caused to him if F.C.O.P.No.1605 of 2024 is
transferred to the Court at Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. He
further submitted that criminal case filed against the respondent
is also pending at Women Police Station, Rachakonda.
Therefore, it is appropriate that the TrCMP is allowed. Learned
counsel for petitioner further submitted that no inconvenience is
said to be caused to respondent if the case is transferred from the
Court at Kalpatharuvu Complex to the Court at Ranga Reddy
District, L.B.Nagar.
LNA, J
6. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on
record.
7. 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.
8. 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."
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
9. 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
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 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."
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
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 give preference to the convenience of the wife
over the convenience of the husband.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended
that the respondent is appearing in all the cases filed by
petitioner in the Courts at Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar and
if this TrCMP is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to
respondent. It is relevant to note that FCOP.No.1744 of 2024
filed by the petitioner seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights is
pending before the Principal Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar, whereas FCOP.No.1605 of 2024 filed by
the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage is pending before
the Principal Family Court Judge, at Hyderbad, Kalpatharuvu
Complex. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be
appropriate if F.C.O.P.No.1605 of 2024 filed by the respondent
and F.C.O.P.No.1744 of 2024 filed by the petitioner be tried by
the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions.
LNA, J
13. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.1605
of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court Judge, at
Hyderabad, Kalpatharuvu Complex is transferred to the Court of I
Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar., for disposal in accordance with law.
14. The Principal Family Court Judge, at Hyderabad,
Kalpatharuvu Complex, shall transmit the entire original record in
F.C.O.P.No.1605 of 2024, duly indexed, to the I Additional Family
Court Judge, 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.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 09.04.2025
pss
