Telangana High Court
Nampally Ravali Sarabu Ravali vs Sarabu Aditya on 11 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.105 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer HMOP.No.30 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, at Sangareddy to the Family Court, at Hanumakonda.
2. Heard Sri M. Saleem, learned counsel for petitioner, and
Sri Syed Tousif Basha, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner in her
affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, are that she and respondent
are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on
14.12.2022 at Hanamkonda as per Hindu rites and customs; that later,
she joined the matrimonial home and lived with the respondent for a few
days; that subsequently, as the respondent and his mother began
harassing her both physically and mentally over petty issues and also
demanded additional dowry, she lodged a complaint against them in
Women Police Station, Warangal, which was registered as a case
in Crime No.28 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 85 and
351 (2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition; the
respondent filed HMOP.No.30 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil
LNA, J
Judge, at Sangareddy, seeking dissolution of marriage; and the said
cases are pending adjudication.
4. It was further averred that she is staying with her parents at
Kondaparthy Village, Warangal District and is completely
dependent on her aged parents for her living, as the respondent is
not paying her any maintenance, and therefore, it is not possible for
her to travel from Hanumakonda to Sangareddy to attend the Court
proceedings in HMOP on each date of hearing of the said case and
hence, she prayed to allow this Tr.CMP.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the
averments made in the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner has
no earning capacity and she is completely dependent on her parents
for her livelihood. It is very difficult for her to attend the Court
proceedings in the HMOP at Sangareddy on every date of hearing
by travelling all the way from Hanamkonda, which is at a distance
of 200 kms, and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMP.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent inter alia submitted that
the respondent has threat to his life in the hands of the petitioner
and her family members or henchmen if he attends the Court at
Hanumakonda and hence, prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP.
LNA, J
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at
Warangal. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent
is not paying any maintenance to her, as such, she is totally
dependent on her parents for her livelihood and apart from that,
due to constant threats of harassment by the respondent, it is
quiet difficult for her to travel distance of 200 kms from
Hanamkonda to Sangareddy to attend the Court proceedings in
HMOP.
8. For deciding this TrCMP., it is relevant to refer to the
underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24
of the CPC seeking 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.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.
Saravana Karthik Sha 1held 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
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the
parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioral
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."
10. 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."
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
LNA, J
11. 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."
12. 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.
13. 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 priority/
preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking
transfer of the HMOP, which are stated supra, are justifiable and
therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.30
of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy is
transferred to the Family Court, at Hanumakonda, for disposal in
accordance with law.
15. The Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire
original record in HMOP.No.30 of 2024, duly indexed, to the
Family Court, at Hanumakonda, 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:11.07.2025
dr
