Telangana High Court
Smt. Peddi Chan Dana vs Pagadala Pradeep Kumar on 4 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.22 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of O.P.No.1086 of 2023 from the file of the Judge, Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at, L.B. Nagar filed by the
respondent-husband, to the Court of the VI Additional Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Sri P. Indra Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri B. Vijay Kumar, 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-wife was solemnized with the
respondent-husband on 19.03.2000 at Sowjanya Function Hall,
Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, as per the prevailing customs in
Hindu Religion. After marriage, respondent started to maintain
distance from the family members and relatives of the petitioner
and never paid any attention towards the petitioner's feelings.
Both petitioner the respondent were supposed to live in
Hyderabad, but due to Covid-19, they were forced to live at
2 LNA, J
respondent's hometown along with the family of the respondent
and has never considered the request of the petitioner to go to
Hyderabad. Respondent invested all the savings of the petitioner
given by her parents for the purpose of purchasing lands along
with his brother. During the period of pregnancy, the respondent
did not take care of the petitioner including medical checkup.
Due to the odd behavior of the respondent and their family
members, petitioner started living separately from January, 2021
and the marital relation between the petitioner and respondent
was irretrievably broken down. Later, petitioner was blessed with
female child on 06.05.2021 and the respondent came to see the
child once, but did not talk to the petitioner for a long time.
4. Therefore, petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.284 of 2023, before
the Court of the VI Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of Marriage and the same is
pending for adjudication.
3 LNA, J
5. Later, respondent filed O.P.No.1086 of 2023 before Family
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for Restitution of
Conjugal Rights and the same is pending for adjudication.
6. It is further stated that in view of strained relationship
between the petitioner and the respondent, it is difficult to attend
the O.P.No.1086 of 2023 for each and every hearing and further as
she has to take care of her minor child. Hence, prayed to transfer
O.P.No.1086 of 2023, which is filed by the respondent, to VI
Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
7. This Court considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
8. 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.
4 LNA, J
9. 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."
10. 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:-
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
5 LNA, J
"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
11. 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."
12. 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,
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
6 LNA, J
the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the
convenience of the husband.
13. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that
the petitioner is seeking transfer of the O.P. filed by the
respondent from the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District
at L.B.Nagar, on the ground that with a minor child she cannot
attend the court on each and every date of adjournment. Further,
for every hearing, she has to take assistance from her family
members. The F.C.O.P.No. 284 of 2023, is filed by the petitioner
for divorce which is pending before the VI Additional Family
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally and whereas,
O.P.No.1086 of 2023 is filed by the respondent for Restitution of
Conjugal Rights, which is pending before Judge, Family Court,
Ranga Reddy, L.B. Nagar. Therefore, it is appropriate that both
the cases be adjudicated by the same Court to avoid conflicting
decisions.
14. 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
7 LNA, J
petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the
convenience of the respondent/husband, this Transfer CMP
deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
O.P.No.1086 of 2023 pending on the file of Family Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is withdrawn and transferred to the
VI Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally,
for disposal in accordance with law.
16. The learned Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar, shall transmit the entire original record in O.P.No.1086 of
2023 duly indexed, to the Court of the VI Additional Family
Judge, 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: 04.03.2025
tssb
