Telangana High Court
Sade Mayuri Alias Budagam Mayuri, vs Sade Gopi, on 19 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.158 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of H.M.O.P. No.67 of 2020 from the file of Senior Civil
Judge at Kothagudem, filed by the petitioner herein, to the
Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Smt.P. Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner.
No representation on behalf of the respondent despite service of
notice vide USR No.46678 of 2025, dated 25.04.2025. 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 and respondent-husband
was solemnized on 16.11.2007 at Sri Sitaram Kalyana Mandapam,
situated at TS GENCO Campus (KTPS), A Colony, Paloncha Town,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District, as per the customs and traditions
prevailing in Hindu religion and that out of the wedlock, they were
blessed with two female children. After the marriage, the
respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty mentally and
physically and finally deserted the petitioner and her two female
children. The petitioner having vexed with the attitude of the
2 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
respondent, she filed H.M.O.P. No.67 of 2020 before the Senior
Civil Judge at Kothagudem seeking divorce on the ground of
cruelty.
4. It is further averred that as the petitioner was necked out
from the matrimonial house of the respondent, the petitioner was
constrained to return to her native place and on the advice of a
counsel of that locality; she filed H.M.O.P. No. 67 of 2020 before
the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kothagudem. Subsequently, the
petitioner shifted her family to Hyderabad for the purpose of her
children education and petitioner lodged a complaint before the
WPS Gachibowli and police filed charge sheet in CC No. 6477 of
2022 against the respondent and others and the same is pending
before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Metroplitan
Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner as well as the respondent are attending before the
Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem on every date of hearing of
H.M.O.P.No.67 of 2020 and that the petitioner has no
independent income and has to take care of her two minor
female children and that the distance from Hyderabad to
Kothagudem is about 271 KMs and the petitioner is not in a
position to travel such a long distance as she has to take care of
3 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
her minor female children and that the petitioner has been
suffering from kidney related ailments and taking treatment at
Hyderabad. Moreover, the respondent is residing at Gachibowli
and appearing in CC No. 6477 of 2022 at Kukatpally. Hence,
prayed to transfer the H.M.O.P. No.67 of 2020 from the file of
Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem to the Court of VI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally.
6. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel or the petitioner. Perused the material available on
record.
7. 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.
8. 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
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
4 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
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."
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
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
5 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
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."
11. Thus, there is a 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. The present Tr.C.M.P. is filed principally on the ground
that the petitioner has no independent income and that she has
to take care two female minor children. It is further averred
that the distance between Hyderabad to Kothagudem is about
271 KMs and that with two minor children she cannot travel
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
6 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
from Hyderabad to Kothagudem, on each and every date of
adjournment as she has been suffering with kidney related
ailments. Therefore, it is appropriate that the H.M.O.P. No.67 of
2020 can be adjudicated by the Court of VI Addl. District and
Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally to avoid conflicting decisions.
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 the
H.M.O.P. No. 67 of 2020 pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge at Kothagudem is withdrawn and transferred to the Court
of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court,
Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally for disposal in accordance
with law.
15. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem shall
transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P. No.67 of 2020
duly indexed to the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-
7 LNA, J
Tr.CMP.No158 of 2025
Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, 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: 19.06.2025
Skj
