Telangana High Court
Temburiniker Matam Richitha vs Matam Nikhilesh on 19 June, 2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.NO.49 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of H.M.O.P.No.158 of 2024 from the Court of the Senior Civil
Judge-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy to the Family Court at
Nizamabad, to be clubbed and tried along with F.C.O.P.No.11 of
2011.
2. Heard Sri Kasarla Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri K.Mohana Chandra Has, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of
present Tr.C.M.P., the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized
with the respondent-husband on 03.01.2021 at Mandha Ram Reddy
Convention, Sagar Road, Hyderabad and during their wedlock, they
blessed with a male child, however, disputes arose between them and
the petitioner left the matrimonial house and is residing with her
parents at Nizamabad; that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024
before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy for divorce
against the respondent. It is further averred that petitioner filed a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also maintenance case
against the respondent vide FCOP No.11 of 2025 and M.C.No.01 of
2025, respectively, before the Family Court at Nizamabad; that
LNA, J
petitioner has no independent income and she is dependent on her
parents and further she has to take care of a younger child. It is
further averred that the distance between Nizamabad and
Sangareddy is above 170 KMs and it is very difficult for her to travel
and attend every hearing in HMOP No.158 of 2024; that there is a
threat to her life in the hands of the respondent in the event of
attending the Court at Sangareddy and therefore, seeks for transfer of
HMOP No.158 of 2024 from the Court of Sangareddy to the Court of
Nizamabad.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that two cases
i.e., FCOP No.11 of 2025 and MC No.1 of 2025 are pending before the
Family Court at Nizamabad and the respondent is appearing in those
cases and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to him in the event
of transfer of HMOP No.158 of 2024 to the Court at Nizamabad and
tried together at Nizamabad. He further contended that there is a
threat to life of petitioner in the hands of the respondent in the event
of her attending the Court at Sangareddy and finally, prayed to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
respondent is a Government employee and therefore, it is difficult for
LNA, J
him to attend the proceedings at Nizamabad, as he has to obtain
leave from his employer for each hearing. Furthermore, the
respondent is suffering from Inflammatory Myopathy problem and is
undergoing regular treatment at Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
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 Apex Court in catena of
judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.
7. In N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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."
8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (supra), has been reiterated by the High Court
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
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 (supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika
Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (supra), 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 prefer
the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at
Nizamabad, which is at a distance of 170 kms from Sangareddy. The
petitioner's case is that she apprehends assault by her husband if she
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
attends the Court at Sangareddy. That apart, the petitioner stated that
due to the matrimonial disputes, she is suffering with mental trauma
and as such, it is difficult for her to travel all alone from Nizamabad to
Sangareddy to attend the proceedings in the HMOP and that she has
take care of minor child. It is further case of the petitioner that
respondent is appearing in M.C.No.1 of 2025 and FCOP No.11 of 2025
pending before the Family Court at Nizamabad.
12. It is relevant to note that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024
for divorce, whereas the petitioner has filed FCOP No.11 of 2025 for
restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, it is appropriate that both
the cases be decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. It
is specifically represented that respondent is suffering with
inflammatory Myopathy problem and taking regular treatment at
Hyderabad and therefore, whenever an application is filed for dispense
with his personal appearance, the Court shall consider the same.
13. In view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments,
the convenience of wife has to be given priority/preference over the
convenience of husband and therefore, in considered opinion of this
Court the Tr.CMP deserved to be allowed.
LNA, J
14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP No.158 of 2024
pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions
Judge at Sangareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court
at Nizamabad, for disposal in accordance with law.
15. The learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at
Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP
No.158 of 2024 duly indexed, to the Family Court at Nizamabad
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:19.06.2025
kkm
LNA, J
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.49 OF 2025
Date: 19.06.2025
kkm
