Telangana High Court
Sande Maheswari Alias Lavanya vs Sande Kotesh on 15 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.392 of 2024 ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer HMOP.No.19 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard Sri M.Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Udith Narayan, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel on record 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 TrCMP, averred that she and respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 17.08.2017 at her parents' Village and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child, who is now aged five years; that for some time, petitioner and respondent lived happily for about five years and subsequently, disputes arose between them and respondent decided to live separately from joint family and left the company of petitioner without any information;
LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 2 that she filed complaint in Crime No.244 of 2020 against the respondent under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before Saroornagar Women Police Station and in connection with the same, CC.No.1277 of 2021 is pending on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. It is further averred that petitioner also filed MC.No.298 of 2021 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District and respondent has been appearing in the aforesaid CC and MC; that she filed IA.No.316 of 2021 in the said M.C. seeking interim maintenance, however, the same was not granted and hence, petitioner is entirely dependent on her parents for her livelihood.
3.1. It is further averred that respondent filed HMOP.No.61 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, however, in view of formation of new Courts, the said case was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda and renumbered as HMOP.No.19 of 2024.
3.2. By contending as above, the petitioner averred that it is inconvenient for her to travel from Hyderabad to Devarakonda, which is about 100 kms, to attend the Court proceedings on every LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 3 date of hearing, by taking care of her minor child aged five years and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is appearing in the aforesaid MC and CC pending in the Courts at Ranga Reddy District and therefore, no inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to respondent if HMOP.No.19 of 2024 is transferred as sought for. He further submitted that since the petitioner has got a child aged 5 years to be taken care of and further, as the petitioner is completely dependent on her parents for her livelihood, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings in the HMOP at Devarakonda and hence, prayed to allow this TrCMP.
5. 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 Devarakonda and hence, prayed to dismiss the TrCMP.
LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 4
6. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in TrCMP.Nos.64 and 225 of 2024, vide orders dated 25.06.2024 and 12.08.2024, respectively.
7. This Court has gone through the aforesaid orders. TrCMP.No.64 of 2024 filed by the petitioner therein/wife was dismissed on the ground that both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal and as such, there is no reason to transfer the HMOP pending in the Court at Nirmal to the Courts at Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, as sought for by the petitioner.
8. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District and respondent is residing at Venkatampet Village in Nalgonda District. Unlike the parties in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, in the present TrCMP., the parties herein are not residing at same place and 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.
9. In the order passed in TrCMP.No.225 of 2024, a learned single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said TrCMP filed by the petitioner therein/wife directed the petitioner therein to LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 5 appear before the Family Court only for cross-examination and further observed that it can also be done by the trial Court through video conferencing or by appointing an Advocate- Commissioner.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to be a labourer, therefore, the facts in TrCMP.No.225 of 2024 are not similar to the present case and the order passed in the said TrCMP is not applicable to the present case.
11. Further, though the respondent stated that he is ready to bear the incidental expenses incurred, if any, by the petitioner for attending the Court at Devarakonda, it is the apt to note that admittedly, the petitioner has to take care of her minor child aged five years and as such, it would be quiet difficult for her to travel all the way from Saroornagar, Hyderabad, to Devarakonda to attend the court proceedings in HMOP.No.19 of 2024. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent is appearing before the Courts at Ranga Reddy District in connection with the aforesaid MC and CC.
12. It is also relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 6 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.
13. 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."
14. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 7 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."
15. 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."
16. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in 2 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 3 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 8 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.
17. 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 HMOP are justifiable and therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
18. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, is transferred to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for disposal in accordance with law.
19. The Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP.No.19 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, preferably LNA, J TrCMP.No.392 of 2024 9 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:15.04.2025 dr