Telangana High Court
Nunavath Jatoth Kavitha Swarupa. vs Nunavath Ramchander Nayak on 18 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.64 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed
seeking to transfer of H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Senior Civil Judge Court, at Peddapalli to the Court of
learned Family Court Judge, at Mancherial, Mancherial
District.
2. Heard Mr. B. Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent
despite service of notice. Therefore, the matter is disposed of
basing on the material available on record.
3. The Brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P
are that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized
with the respondent-husband on 21.05.2014 at Kalvada
Village, Dhaygam Mandal, Mancherial District, as per the
prevailing customs in their community and soon after their
marriage the petitioner joined the company of respondent and
out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. It
is averred that the petitioner was subjected to physical and
mental harassment for additional dowry and was necked out
from matrimonial house and that unable to bear the physical
LNA, J
harassment and abuse by respondent, and his family
members, the petitioner lodged a complaint in Crime No.49 of
2023 dated 09.09.2023 under Section 498-A, 494, 506 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition,
Act and the same is pending. The petitioner has also filed
D.V.C.No.07 of 2024 before learned Judicial Junior Civil
Judge, at Mancherial. In the meanwhile, respondent herein
filed H.M.O.P.No.05 of 2023 on the file of the learned Senior
Civil Judge Court, at Peddapalli.
3.1. It is further averred that at present, she is taking
shelter in her parent's house and is financially dependent on
her parents and she has to take care of her minor daughters.
Moreover, the distance between Mancherial and Peddapalli is
more than 60 Kilometres, therefore, it is difficult for the
petitioner to travel from Mancherial to Peddapalli to attend
the H.M.O.P. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner
filed the present Tr.C.M.P.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from
reiterating the averments made in the Tr.C.M.P, contended
that D.V.C.No.07 of 2024 is pending at Mancherial and
despite service of notice the respondent is not appearing in
any case. Therefore, if the matter is transferred from file of
LNA, J
the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, at Peddapalli to the
Court of learned Family Court Judge, at Mancherial,
Mancherial District, no prejudice would be caused to the
respondent and further contended that convenience of wife
has to be considered as against the convenience of the
husband in the matrimonial matter and hence, prayed to
allow the present Tr.C.M.P.
5. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on
record.
6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under
Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or
other proceedings, 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 Vs.
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 should demand the transfer of the suit,
appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,
wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
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 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
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:-
"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. The present Tr.C.M.P is filed principally on the ground
that she is dependent upon her parents and she has to take
care of two minor children. Therefore, it is difficult for her to
travel from Mancherial to Peddapalli on every date of
adjournment. Further, for every hearing, she has to take
assistance from her family members.
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
12. It is also relevant to note that the Crime No.49 of 2023
and D.V.C.No.07 of 2024 are pending at Mancherial, whereas
H.M.O.P filed by the respondent-husband is pending before
the Court at Peddapalli.
13. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and 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 wife has to be given priority/preference
over the convenience of the husband, this Tr.CMP deserves to
be allowed.
14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and
H.M.O.P.No.05 of 2023 on the file of the learned Senior Civil
Judge Court, at Peddapalli is transferred to the Court of
learned Family Court Judge, at Mancherial, Mancherial
District, in accordance with law.
15. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, at Peddapalli
shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.05 of
2023, duly indexed, to the Court of learned Family Court
Judge, at Mancherial, Mancherial District, preferably within a
period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
LNA, J
16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
18th June, 2025
PSW
