Telangana High Court
Geetha Mohithe vs Kanjsrla Srikanth on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.403 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 from the file of the Senior
Civil Judge at Nizamabad to the Judge, Family Court at
Adilabad.
2. Heard, Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner. Sri Aakula Manik Prabhu, entered appearance
for respondent but there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent.
3. Petitioner herein is wife and respondent herein is
husband.
4. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of the
petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on
21.05.2023 at Venkateshwara Swamy Temple of Village
Mallapur, Indalwai Mandal as per caste customs and petitioner
joined matrimonial house after marriage. However, after few
months she was subjected to physical and mental harassment
for demand of additional dowry. On 10.09.2023 she was forced
to come back to their parents house at Adilabad in view of
continued harassment. Petitioner lodged complaint with the
police and despite counseling she was not allowed to reside with
the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed Crime No.70 of 2024
under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
2 LNA, J
before Women P.S., Adilabad. Petitioner has also filed
D.V.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of Special JFCM Mobile (PCR)
Court at Adilabad and the same are pending. It is further
contended that in the meanwhile respondent filed O.P for
dissolution of marriage vide H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 before the
Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.
5. It is contended that petitioner is financially dependent on
her parents and that respondent earlier threatened the
petitioner with dire consequences and she is apprehending life
threat if she goes to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in
H.M.O.P. It is further averred that being a single lady it is
difficult for the petitioner to travel distance of 145 kilometers
from Adilabad to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in H.M.O.P
on every date of hearing and thus requested to transfer H.M.O.P
from Nizamabad to Adilabad.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 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
3 LNA, J
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gargi
Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 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."
8. 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:-
(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
4 LNA, J
"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".
9. 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."
10. 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)
5 LNA, J
11. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner is resident
of Adilabad and whereas H.M.O.P filed by the respondent is
pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad and in view
of the long distance between Adilabad where petitioner is
residing to Nizamabad where H.M.O.P is pending, it is difficult
for her to travel alone on every date of hearing. It is also case of
the petitioner that she was threatened by the respondent and
also has fear of threat if she attends proceedings at Nizamabad
in connection with H.M.O.P filed by the respondent
12. It is also relevant to note that DVC filed by the petitioner
is pending before the Court at Adilabad, whereas HMOP filed by
the respondent-husband is pending before the Court at
Nizamabad and the respondent has to appear before the DVC
case pending before Adilabad.
13. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions,
this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-
wife seeking transfer of the case.
14. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge at Nizamabad, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of
6 LNA, J
the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, for disposal in accordance
with law.
15. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, shall
transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024
duly indexed, to the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, preferably
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 27.02.2025
Bw
