Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 613 (TS)

Kona Alias Myasa Rama v. Kona Sai Soma Shekar

2025-05-02

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer FCOP.No.148 of 2023 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. 2. Heard Sri Baddam Aravind Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Mandapati Murali Krishna, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., averred that she and respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in their community; that after marriage, she joined matrimonial house of respondent, however, due to the harassment by the respondent, she filed DV.C.No.16 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. The respondent filed FCOP No.148 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Family Court Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, seeking for divorce. 4. She further averred that presently, she is staying along with her parents at Karimnagar and in view of the strained relationship between her and the respondent, she cannot travel alone from Karimnagar to Kukatpally, which is about 190 kms and has to take assistance from her family members to attend the Court proceedings in FCOP; and she also apprehends threat to her life, if she attends the court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMP. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, submitted that respondent is appearing in the aforesaid DVC pending on the file of Court Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad and therefore, no inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to respondent if FCOP.No.148 of 2023 is transferred as sought for. He further submitted that since the petitioner is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings in the FCOP at Kukatpally on every date of hearing and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMP. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent is ready to bear the travel and other incidental expenses of petitioner which she may incur to attend the Court at Kukatpally and hence, prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent is ready to bear the travel and other incidental expenses of petitioner which she may incur to attend the Court at Kukatpally and hence, prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following judgments/orders: (i) Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das 2006 (9) SCC 197 (ii) Order in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, dated 25.06.2024 (iii) Common order in Tr.CMP. No.809 of 2016, dated 06-12-2018. 8. This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgments/orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das’s case (cited supra), filed by the petitioner therein/wife was dismissed on the ground that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi. 9. TrCMP.No.64 of 2024 filed by the petitioner therein/wife was dismissed vide orders dated 25.06.2024 on the ground that both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal and as such, there is no reason to transfer the FCOP pending in the Court at Nirmal to the Courts at Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, as sought for by the petitioner therein. 10. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Karimnagar and respondent is residing at Jubilee Hills, Cyberabad, unlike in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, where both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal, therefore, the facts of the said case are not similar to the present case and hence, the said order is of no aid to the respondent. 11. Tr.CMP.No.809 of 2016 and batch, which were filed by the petitioners therein/wives, were dismissed by learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide common order dated 06.12.2018. In the said common order, the learned single Judge has laid down certain guidelines to exercise the power under Section 24 CPC in matrimonial cases and further, held that the cases of the petitioners therein/wives does not fall in any of the said guidelines and also the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others , [ 2008(3) SCC 659 ] and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners therein/wives seeking transfer of the cases. 12. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others , [ 2008(3) SCC 659 ] and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners therein/wives seeking transfer of the cases. 12. In the present case, the petitioner/wife is seeking transfer of FCOP on the grounds of inconvenience and threat to her life. As such, the case of the petitioner falls under guideline Nos.1, 2 and 6 enunciated in the common order passed in TrCMP.No.809 of 2016 and batch. 13. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, admittedly, respondent is appearing in DV.C.No.16 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Judge, at Huzurabad. Therefore, as per guideline Nos.1, 2 and 3 enunciated in the common order passed in TrCMP.No.809 of 2016 and batch, if the convenience caused to both the parties is weighed and further, to strike balance between the rights of the parties, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is of the considered opinion that the prayer sought for by the petitioner/wife needs to be considered. 14. Further, it is also relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs.A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , [2022 SCC Online SC 1199] 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 behavioral 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.” 16. 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.” 16. The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (3 rd cited supra) , has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil , (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) , 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.” 17. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil , (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) followed the principle laid down in N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (3 rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil’s case (4 th 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.” 18. 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. 19. For the foregoing reasons and further, 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 Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the FCOP are justifiable and therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.148 of 2023 on the file of Principal Family Court Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally is transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, for disposal in accordance with law. 21. 20. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.148 of 2023 on the file of Principal Family Court Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally is transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, for disposal in accordance with law. 21. The Principal Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.148 of 2023, duly indexed, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.