Telangana High Court
Koora Garlapati Sushmitha vs Koora Srinivas on 11 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.419 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed
seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2024 from the file of
the Senior Civil Judge at Meedak to the Judge, Family
Court at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2. Heard, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel
for the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of
the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-
husband on 01.05.2008 at Venkata Sai Garden Function
Hall, Nalgonda Town as per Hindu customs and traditions
and out of wedlock, they are blessed with a boy on
14.02.2012; that differences arose between the petitioner
and respondent and the respondent did not take petitioner
to U.S.A where he was working and thus petitioner filed
complaint before the Nalgonda II Town Police Station vide
Crime No.318 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 498-
A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the
respondent and his family members and after the
2 LNA, J
investigation, police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.2421
of 2024 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise JFCM,
Nalgonda, that the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.22 of 2015 on
the file of the Special Mobile JFCM, Nalgonda against the
respondent and his family members and also filed a
petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights vide O.P.No.140
of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, at Nalgonda.
4. It is contended that after filing of the above cases,
respondent had promised with the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.55,00,000/- as permanent alimony and out
of the said amount respondent paid an amount of
Rs.27,50,000/- and further agreed to pay the remaining
amount of Rs.27,50,000/- at the time of adducing evidence
in the mutual divorce petitions as per terms and conditions
dated 08.09.2021. It is further contended that both the
petitioner and respondent filed mutual divorce petition vide
O.P.No.66 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at
Nalgonda, however, the respondent did not pay the total
permanent alimony, only paid part payment. It is further
contended that some of the above said cases were
3 LNA, J
withdrawn and some cases were settled before the Lok
Adalat but respondent failed to pay total amount as per
terms and conditions dated 08.09.2021 and it is contended
that respondent had intentionally cheated without paying
the balance out of the agreed amount.
5. It is further contended that in view non-compliance of
terms and conditions by the respondent, petitioner again
filed M.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family
Court, at Nalgonda, gave complaint against respondent and
his family members vide Crime No.5 of 2023 at WPS,
Nalgonda for the offences under sections 498-A, 506 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and the police filed a
charge sheet vide C.C.No.331 of 2023 on the file of JFCM
(Prohibition & Excise offences) at Nalgonda and
D.V.C.No.34 of 2023 on the file of Special (Mobile) JFCM,
Nalgonda.
6. It is contended that the respondent filed
H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2024 for divorce on the file of Senior Civil
Judge at Medak only to harass the petitioner and it is
further contended that petitioner was subjected to
4 LNA, J
harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil
Judge Court at Medak and also submitted that petitioner
has great difficulty to appear before the Court at Medak
and also stated that it is difficult for the petitioner to travel
from Nalgonda to Medak as distance between both the
places is about 210 kilometers and has to take care of her
minor son and thus prayed to transfer H.M.O.P filed by the
respondent from Medak to Nalgonda.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent contended that the present petition is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed and further contended
that if all the matters are transferred to any Court at
Hyderabad it will be convenient for both the parties to
attend the proceedings at common place instead of
Nalgonda and Medak.
8. A perusal of the record disclose that petitioner is a
resident of Nalgonda and she has filed M.C.No.8 of 2021,
Crime No.5 of 2023, C.C.No.331 of 2023 and D.V.C.No.34
of 2023 before the Courts at Nalgonda. It is specifically
contended on behalf of petitioner that she was subjected to
5 LNA, J
harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil
Judge Court at Medak. It is further contended that in view
of long distance of 210 kilometers between Nalgonda to
Medak and also because of her minor child, it is difficult
for the petitioner to appear in H.M.O.P before the Family
Court, Medak and as respondent is appearing before the
Courts at Nalgonda, no prejudice will be caused to the
respondent if H.M.O.P is transferred from Medak to
Nalgonda.
9. In the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes,
the convenience of the wife has to be considered vis-à-vis
the convenience of the husband, and therefore, the request
of the petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In support of
the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 held as follows:
(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
6 LNA, J
"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."
11. 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 3, 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
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
7 LNA, J
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".
12. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka
Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 4 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 of the CPC, is that
convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the
convenience of the husband."
13. 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.
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
8 LNA, J
14. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner is
resident of Nalgonda and whereas H.M.O.P filed by the
respondent is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at
Medak. Further, petitioner has to take care of her minor
child and it is also case of the petitioner that she faced
harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil
Judge at Medak in connection with H.M.O.P filed by the
respondent and in view of the long distance between
Nalgonda where petitioner is residing to Medak where
H.M.O.P is pending, it is difficult for her to travel along
with her minor child on every date of hearing.
15. It is also relevant to note that the cases viz., MC, CC
and DVC between the parties are pending before the Courts
at Nalgonda, whereas HMOP filed by the respondent-
husband is pending before the Court at Medak and the
respondent has to appear before the cases pending before
Nalgonda.
16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid
9 LNA, J
decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of
the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case.
17. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge at Meedak, is withdrawn and transferred to the
file of the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, Nalgonda
District, for disposal in accordance with law.
18. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Meedak, shall
transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.10 of
2024 duly indexed, to the Judge, Family Court at
Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, preferably within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 11.02.2025
Bw
