Telangana High Court
Mrs. K. Tejaswini Samyuktha vs Mr. D. Shiva Krishna on 12 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.485 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the
petitioner-wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.291 of 2024 from
the file of the Additional Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri
District at Kukatpally, filed by the respondent-husband, to the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Miryalaguda.
2. Heard Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and G. Ramya Kumari, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P.
are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 23.06.2019 at S.P.Convention, Venkateshwara
Temple Road, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda
District, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion. After
marriage, petitioner joined conjugal life with the respondent
and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children
and one of them is specially disabled child. After the marriage,
respondent started harassing the petitioner mentally and
physically and unable to bear the harassment of the
respondent, petitioner left the company of the respondent in
the month of March, 2024 and started living with their parents
at Miryalguda.
4. Later, Respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.291 of 2024, under
Section 13(1) (IA) of Hindu Marriage Act, before Additional
Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, for
Dissolution of Marraige.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
petitioner is dependent on their parents and has no
independent income and apart from that she has to take care of
two minor children out of which one child is specially child
and in such a situation, it is very difficult for her to travel 180
kms from Miryalaguda to Kukatpally. Therefore, prayed to
allow the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that
F.C.O.P. filed by the respondent is coming for counter in trial
Court and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the
matter is transferred from Kukatpally Court to Miryalaguda
Court.
7. Leaned counsel for the respondent contended that
respondent is willing to pay transport and other expenses to
the petitioner, for her personal appearance before the
Kukatpally Court and further contended that the father of the
petitioner is a Senior Counsel in Miryalaguda and he may
influence the Court proceedings. Hence prayed to dismiss the
petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana
Karthik Sha 1 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."
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
9. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd 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
10. 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 (2nd cited supra) and Devika
Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd 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."
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
11. 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.
12. A perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner
has two minor children and one of them is specially disabled
child and moreover she is dependent on her parents as she has
no source of income and it is difficult for her to travel 180 kms
from Miryalaguda to Kukatpally, along with two minor
children on each and every date of hearing of F.C.O.P.No.291
of 2024.
13. Therefore, 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 Transfer
CMP deserves to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
F.C.O.P.No.291 of 2024, pending before the Additional Family
Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, is withdrawn
and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for
disposal in accordance with law.
15. The learned Additional Family Court, Medchal
Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, shall transmit the entire
original record in F.C.O.P.No.291 of 2024 duly indexed, to the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, preferably
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 12.06.2025
tssb
