Gatla Anusha vs Gatla Kiran
2025 Latest Caselaw 3772 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3772 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

Gatla Anusha vs Gatla Kiran on 10 June, 2025

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
     TRANSFER CIVIL MISCALLANEOUS PETITION No.520 of 2024

ORDER:

Tr.C.M.P. is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P. No.130

of 2023 from the file the Senior Civil Judge at Metpally,

Jagtial District to the file of the Senior Civil Judge at

Mancherial, Mancherial District.

2. Heard Sri M. Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for

the petitioner. Notice sent to the respondent was returned

un-served with endorsement "unclaimed", hence notice is

deemed to be served. Therefore, the matter is being

disposed of based on the material available on record.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner

and the respondent are wife and husband and their

marriage was solemnised on 20.04.2017, as per Hindu

rights and customs. Out of their wedlock, they are blessed

with a girl child. It is averred that the petitioner was

subjected to mental and physical harassment and unable

to bear the harassment, she lodged a complaint before the

Srirampur Police Station and registered a case in Crime

LNA, J

No.57 of 2019 was registered under Sections 498-A, 323,

506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") and the police have filed

charge sheet vide C.C.No.99 of 2020 on the file of the II

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Magistrate and

the same is pending. The petitioner has also filed DVC

case on 25.01.2021 vide D.V.C.No.07 of 2021 on the file of

the same Court. An application under Section 23 (2) of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

claiming monetary relief of Rs.50,000/- per month vide

Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2021 in DVC No.07 of 2021 was filed by

the petitioner and all these matters are pending before the

Court at Mancherial.

4. It is averred that though the respondent entered

appearance in DVC No.07 of 2021, he is not attending the

Court regularly. In the meanwhile, respondent filed

H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge

at Jagtial Court for grant of divorce and subsequently, the

same was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Metpally

LNA, J

and is renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2023 and is

pending for adjudication.

5. It is averred that the petitioner being a lady, having

small girl child, aged about six (06) years has to take care

of minor child. In view of the same, she is unable to attend

the Court at Metpally and also in view of long distance, she

cannot travel and attend the every date of hearing.

Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner needs to

be considered.

6. Further, it is relevant to refer to the underlying

principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the

C.P.C. 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.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v.

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

2022 SCC Online SC 1199

LNA, J

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 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 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."

9. 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:-

(2023 SCC Online Bom 1926)

(2023 SCC Online Bom 1982)

LNA, J

"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."

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 give preference to the

convenience of the wife over the convenience of the

husband.

11. 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