Karantoth Shirisha vs Sapavath Pavan Kalyan
2025 Latest Caselaw 663 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 663 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

Karantoth Shirisha vs Sapavath Pavan Kalyan on 29 July, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

 TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.148 of 2025

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to

transfer FCOP.No.2 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family

Court, Nalgonda to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for

petitioner. No representation for respondent, despite service of

notice on him, therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on

the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details,

required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred in the

affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, are that the petitioner and

respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was

solemnized on 27.06.2021 at Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites and

customs; that soon after the marriage, the petitioner joined the

matrimonial company of the respondent; that out of wedlock, they

were blessed with a baby boy on 12.08.2022; that the petitioner

was subjected to verbal abuse and physical violence by respondent LNA, J

and his family members demanding additional dowry, as such, she

lodged a complaint with Saroornagar Police Station against them,

which was numbered as CC.No.2624 of 2024 before the

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and is

pending; and that respondent filed FCOP.No.2 of 2025 before the

Family Court, Nalgonda, for restitution of conjugal rights.

3.1. The petitioner further averred that she is residing with her

parents at Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District and is entirely

dependent on them for her livelihood; that she has to take care of

her son who is aged about three years; that the distance between

Ranga Reddy District and Nalgonda is about 100 kms and as such,

it is difficult for her to travel, along with her minor son aged three

years, from her parents' residence at Ranga Reddy District to

Nalgonda, on each and every date of hearing of FCOP to attend the

Court proceedings and hence, prayed to transfer the HMOP as

sought for.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the

averments made in the affidavit, submitted that in CC.No.2624 of LNA, J

2024 wherein the respondent and his family members were shown

as accused is pending before the Court at Ranga Reddy District

and they are supposed to appear in the said CC, therefore, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the FCOP is

transferred to Court at Ranga Reddy District and accordingly,

prayed this Court to allow this TrCMP.

5. 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.

6. 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 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

2022 SCC Online SC 1199 LNA, J

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."

7. 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."

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 (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj

2023 SCC Online Bom 1926

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982 LNA, J

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."

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 give preference to the convenience of the wife

over the convenience of the husband.

10. This Tr.C.M.P is filed principally on the ground that

petitioner is totally dependent on her parents for her survival and

as such, it is financially burden on them and further, it is also

difficult for her to travel, along with minor son aged about three

years, a distance of more than 100 kms from Ranga Reddy

District to Nalgonda to attend the Court proceedings in FCOP on