Telangana High Court

Sande Maheswari Alias Lavanya vs Sande Kotesh on 15 April, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.392 of 2024

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to

transfer HMOP.No.19 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge, Devarakonda to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Sri M.Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri Udith Narayan, learned counsel representing

Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel on record 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 17.08.2017 at her parents' Village and out of the

wedlock, they were blessed with a male child, who is now aged

five years; that for some time, petitioner and respondent lived

happily for about five years and subsequently, disputes arose

between them and respondent decided to live separately from joint

family and left the company of petitioner without any information;

LNA, J

that she filed complaint in Crime No.244 of 2020 against the

respondent under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before Saroornagar Women Police

Station and in connection with the same, CC.No.1277 of 2021 is

pending on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. It is further averred

that petitioner also filed MC.No.298 of 2021 before the Family

Court, Ranga Reddy District and respondent has been appearing in

the aforesaid CC and MC; that she filed IA.No.316 of 2021 in the

said M.C. seeking interim maintenance, however, the same was not

granted and hence, petitioner is entirely dependent on her parents

for her livelihood.

3.1. It is further averred that respondent filed HMOP.No.61 of

2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, however, in view

of formation of new Courts, the said case was transferred to the

Court of Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda and renumbered as

HMOP.No.19 of 2024.

3.2. By contending as above, the petitioner averred that it is

inconvenient for her to travel from Hyderabad to Devarakonda,

which is about 100 kms, to attend the Court proceedings on every LNA, J

date of hearing, by taking care of her minor child aged five years

and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMP.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating

the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is

appearing in the aforesaid MC and CC pending in the Courts at

Ranga Reddy District and therefore, no inconvenience or

prejudice would be caused to respondent if HMOP.No.19 of

2024 is transferred as sought for. He further submitted that since

the petitioner has got a child aged 5 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 her to attend the Court

proceedings in the HMOP at Devarakonda and hence, prayed to

allow this TrCMP.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

submitted that respondent is ready to bear the travel and other

incidental expenses of petitioner which she may incur to attend

the Court at Devarakonda and hence, prayed to dismiss the

TrCMP.

LNA, J

6. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on orders

passed by this Court in TrCMP.Nos.64 and 225 of 2024, vide

orders dated 25.06.2024 and 12.08.2024, respectively.

7. This Court has gone through the aforesaid orders.

TrCMP.No.64 of 2024 filed by the petitioner therein/wife was

dismissed on the ground that both the parties therein are residing

at Nirmal and as such, there is no reason to transfer the HMOP

pending in the Court at Nirmal to the Courts at Hyderabad or

Ranga Reddy District, as sought for by the petitioner.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is residing

with her parents at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy

District and respondent is residing at Venkatampet Village in

Nalgonda District. Unlike the parties in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024,

in the present TrCMP., the parties herein are not residing at same

place and therefore, the facts of the said case are not similar to

the present case and hence, the said order is of no aid to the

respondent.

9. In the order passed in TrCMP.No.225 of 2024, a learned

single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said TrCMP filed

by the petitioner therein/wife directed the petitioner therein to LNA, J

appear before the Family Court only for cross-examination and

further observed that it can also be done by the trial Court

through video conferencing or by appointing an Advocate-

Commissioner.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to be a labourer,

therefore, the facts in TrCMP.No.225 of 2024 are not similar to

the present case and the order passed in the said TrCMP is not

applicable to the present case.

11. Further, though the respondent stated that he is ready to

bear the incidental expenses incurred, if any, by the petitioner for

attending the Court at Devarakonda, it is the apt to note that

admittedly, the petitioner has to take care of her minor child

aged five years and as such, it would be quiet difficult for her to

travel all the way from Saroornagar, Hyderabad, to Devarakonda

to attend the court proceedings in HMOP.No.19 of 2024.

Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent is appearing

before the Courts at Ranga Reddy District in connection with the

aforesaid MC and CC.

12. It is also relevant to refer to the underlying principle

governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking LNA, J

transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is

enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments

and the same was followed by various High Courts.

13. 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."

14. 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."

15. 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."

16. 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.

17. For the foregoing reasons and 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