Telangana High Court
Smt. Bathini Rayikindi Srija vs Mr. Bathini Anji Babu on 27 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.251 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer H.M.O.P.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior
Civil Judge, at Kodad, Suryapet District to the Court of learned
Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.
2. Heard Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent, despite
service of Notice.
3. The Brief facts leading to filling of the present Tr.C.M.P
are that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with
the respondent-husband on 26.02.2020 at Bethavolu village,
Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District, as per the prevailing customs
in their community. It is stated that out of their wedlock, they
were blessed with a baby boy. However, she was ill-treated and
unable to bear the physical harassment and abuse by respondent,
and his family members, for want of additional dowry. On
29.08.2022, the respondent and his family members necked her
LNA, J
out of the house. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint in
Crime No.102 of 2022 on 06.09.2022 for the offence under
Sections 498-A, 324 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before Chilkur Police Station and
the same is pending. She also filed M.C.No.31 of 2022 and DVC
before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at
Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and the same are pending.
3.1. It is further averred that at present, she is taking shelter
in her parent's house in Miryalaguda and is financially
dependent on her parents. The respondent only to harass the
petitioner has filed the HMOP at Kodad. As there is threat in the
hands of respondent, she cannot travel alone from Miryalaguda
to Kodad to attend the Court proceedings at Kodad, which is
burdensome on her parents. In those set of circumstances, the
petitioner filed the present Tr.C.M.P.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from the
averments made in the affidavit had contended that though the
respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 before the learned
Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurnagar seeking for dissolution of
LNA, J
marriage, however in view of establishment of new Courts, the
said case was transferred to the Court at Kodad i.e., learned
Senior Civil Judge, Kodad and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.67 of
2024.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
presently, the petitioner is residing with her parents at
Miryalaguda and is financially dependent on her parents and she
has to take care of small child, therefore, it is difficult for the
petitioner to travel from Miryalaguda to Kodad to attend the
pending case. It is further contended that the respondent is
attending both the matters i.e., M.C and D.V.C which are
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at
Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Therefore, no inconvenience
will be caused to the respondent and hence, he prayed to allow
the present Tr.CMP.
5. This Court considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on
record.
LNA, J
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 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
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
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."
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."
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
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. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that
the petitioner is seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. filed by the
respondent from the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodad, to the
Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, on the ground
that the she is dependent upon her parents and has to look after
the welfare of her child aged three and half years and therefore,
it is difficult for her to travel from Miryalguda to Kodad on
every date of adjournment. Further, for every hearing, she has to
take assistance from her family members.
12. Also, it is relevant to note that the cases viz., MC and
DVC between the parties are pending before the Courts at
Miryalguda, whereas HMOP filed by the respondent-husband is
pending before the Court at Kodad.
LNA, J
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light
of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is
inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife seeking
transfer of the case.
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
petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the
convenience of the respondent/husband, this Tr.CMP deserves to
be allowed.
15. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.67
of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kodad,
Suryapet District is transferred to the Court of learned Senior
Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, for disposal in
accordance with law.
16. The learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kodad, shall transmit
the entire original record in HMOP No.67 of 2024, duly indexed,
to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda,
LNA, J
Nalgonda District, preferably within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:27.03.2025
dgr
