Smt. Shankarapu Subbaiah Naikar ... vs Subbaiah Naikar Ennosh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3178 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3178 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Smt. Shankarapu Subbaiah Naikar ... vs Subbaiah Naikar Ennosh on 18 March, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                       Tr.C.M.P.No.504 of 2024

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking

transfer of D.O.P.No.44 of 2024 from the file of the Principal

District Judge, Khammam, filed by the respondent-husband, to

the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Court,

Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

2. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of

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 24.08.2021 at Raghupathi Reddy

Function Hall, Navipet Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad

District, as per the prevailing customs in Christian Community.

Thereafter, they lead their martial life happily for some period.

Later, on 10.05.2024, the respondent snatched the gold ornaments

from the petitioner and driven her out of his house. Since then the 2 LNA, J

petitioner is residing in her parent's house. On 20.06.2024,

panchayath was held and the respondent besides demanding

additional dowry from the parents of the petitioner, also

threatened them that he will perform another marriage as the

petitioner is not blessed with children. On 04.07.2024, the

petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent for restitution of

conjugal rights. However, on 12.07.2024, the petitioner given

evasive reply to the said legal notice by making false allegations

and at the instigation of the family members, the petitioner filed

D.O.P. No.44 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge at

Khammam, under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for

restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for

adjudication.

4. Later, petitioner filed M.C.No.18 of 2024 before V

Additional District and Sessions Court, Bodhan, Nizamabad

District, seeking maintenance amount and the same is pending

for adjudication.

5. It is further stated that in view of strained relationship

between the petitioner and the respondent, it is difficult to attend 3 LNA, J

the D.O.P. No. 44 of 2024 for each and every hearing. Hence,

prayed to transfer D.O.P.No.44 of 2024, which is filed by the

respondent, to V Additional District and Sessions Court, Bodhan,

Nizamabad District.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for 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 of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In

2022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J

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 inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 5 LNA, J

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 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. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that

the petitioner is seeking transfer of the O.P.No.44 of 2024 filed by

the respondent from the Principal District Judge at Khammam, on

the ground that with a minor child, she cannot attend the

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 6 LNA, J

Principal District Judge Court at Khammam on each and every