Telangana High Court
Dr. Pasupuleti Divya vs Sri. Salavadi Dilip Kumar on 15 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.108 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the
petitioner-wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 from
the file of the I Additional Family Judge, Hyderabad, filed by the
respondent-husband, to the Court of the VI Additional District
and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Sri K. Sai Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents,
despite service of notice and the matter is disposed basing on the
material available on record.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are
that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the
respondent-husband on 18.08.2020 at lemon Tree Premier, Hi-
Tech City, Hyderabad, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu
Religion. After marriage, petitioner joined conjugal life with the
respondent. Respondent No.1 is working in film industry and
earning a good amount of money and petitioner is a doctor at
2 LNA, J
KIMS hospital and gives the entire salary to the respondent No.1.
Later, disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.
and respondent No.1 started threatening the petitioner that he
will divorce the petitioner and insisted her to give divorce.
Family members of the respondent No.1 also started harassing
the petitioner for no reason. Respondent No.1, stopped
discharging his duties as a husband and later with his eccentric,
adamant attitude deserted petitioner by refusing to maintain.
4. Later, Respondent No.1, issued legal notice to the petitioner
on for restitution of Conjugal Rights on 20.01.2025. Thereafter,
petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.77 of 2025, before VI Additional
District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally, seeking restitution of Conjugal Rights.
Respondent No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025, before I
Additional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, seeking divorce.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that that
petitioner is residing with her parents at Kondapur and attending
work at KIMS Hospital which is also at Kondapur, therefore, it is
difficult to attend Court proceedings at Hyderabad. Learned
3 LNA, J
counsel further contended that as the respondent No.1 is residing
at Jubliee Hills, it would be convenient for the petitioner and also
respondent to attend the Court cases at Kukatpally. Hence,
prayed to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025, to Kukatpally
Court
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs.
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1 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 convenience which must be looked at while considering
transfer."
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
4 LNA, J
7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd 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
8. 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 (2nd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj
Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd cited supra),
and held as follows:-
"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."
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
5 LNA, J
9. 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.
10. In the present, case, a perusal of the record would disclose
petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.77 of 2025, before VI Additional
District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at Kukatpally, for restitution of Conjugal Rights
and Respondent No.1, filed F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 before I
Additional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, for Divorce.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is
appropriate that both the F.C.O.Ps. be heard by one Court to
avoid conflicting decisions.
11. Therefore, 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
6 LNA, J
convenience of the respondent/husband, this Transfer CMP
deserves to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 pending on the file of before I Additional
Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, is withdrawn and transferred
to the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family
Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for disposal in
accordance with law.
13. The learned I Additional Family Court Judge at
Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in
F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 duly indexed, to the Court of the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, 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: 15.04.2025
tssb
