Telangana High Court
Smt. Kattagoni Preethi Sanem Preethi vs Kattagoni Sridhar on 29 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.104 of 2025 ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer HMOP.No.8 of 2025 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, Peddapalli to the Family Court at Integrated Family
Court Complex, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri M.P.K.Aditya, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details,
required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred in the
affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, are that the petitioner and
respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was
solemnized on 21.10.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs; that
soon after the marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial
company of the respondent; and thereafter, unable to bear the
physical and mental harassment meted out by her in the hands of
the respondent, she lodged a complaint against him before the
Women Police Station, Central Zone (Hyderabad), which was
registered as a case in Crime No.89 of 2024 for the offences
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
2
punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act; that the petitioner also filed DVC.No.44
of 2025 on the file of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Hyderabad; and that respondent filed HMOP.No.8 of 2025 for
divorce before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and all the said
cases are pending.
3.1. The petitioner averred that she is residing with her parents at
Secunderabad and as such, it is difficult for her to travel from
Secunderabad to Peddapalli on each and every date of hearing of
HMOP to attend the Court proceedings.
3.2. The petitioner further averred that respondent is working as
Software employee at Hyderabad and residing with his parents at
Hyderabad, therefore, if HMOP is transferred from the Court at
Peddapalli, no prejudice would be caused to him and prayed to
allow the TrCMP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the
averments made in the affidavit, submitted that the criminal case
and DVC filed by the petitioner against the respondent are pending
at Hyderabad and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to
respondent if the HMOP is transferred as sought for and in fact, it
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
3
would be convenient for the respondent, who is residing at
Hyderabad, and accordingly, prayed to allow the Tr.CMP.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that
petitioner is an employee and she can afford to travel to Peddapalli
from Secunderabad, whereas the respondent, at present, is
unemployed and is residing with his parents at Peddapalli, as such,
it would be burden on him to travel from Peddapalli to Hyderabad.
He further submitted that no case is made out for transfer of
HMOP as sought for by the petitioner and hence, the TrCMP is
liable to be dismissed.
6. It is 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.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.
Saravana Karthik Sha 1held 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 other1
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
4proceeding. 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.”
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
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.”
2
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
5
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.”
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. This Tr.C.M.P is filed principally on the ground that the
both the petitioner and respondent are working at Hyderabad;
that petitioner is residing with her parents at Secunderabad; and
that the DVC and criminal case filed by petitioner are pending at
Hyderabad, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties
3
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
6
to attend all the cases at Hyderabad, if the HMOP is transferred
from Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli to the Family Court at
Integrated Family Court Complex, Hyderabad.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case 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 wife has to
be given priority/preference over the convenience of the
husband, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
has made out a case for transfer of the FCOP filed by the
respondent and therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.8
of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli is
transferred to the Family Court at Integrated Family Court
Complex, Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with law.
14. The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, shall transmit the entire
original record in HMOP.No.8 of 2025, duly indexed, to the
Family Court at Integrated Family Court Complex, Hyderabad,
preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.104 of 2025
7
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:29.07.2025
dr