Geetha Mohithe vs Kanjsrla Srikanth on 27 February, 2025

Telangana High Court

Geetha Mohithe vs Kanjsrla Srikanth on 27 February, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                      Tr.C.M.P.No.403 of 2024

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking

transfer of H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 from the file of the Senior

Civil Judge at Nizamabad to the Judge, Family Court at

Adilabad.

2. Heard, Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner. Sri Aakula Manik Prabhu, entered appearance

for respondent but there is no representation on behalf of the

respondent.

3. Petitioner herein is wife and respondent herein is

husband.

4. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of the

petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on

21.05.2023 at Venkateshwara Swamy Temple of Village

Mallapur, Indalwai Mandal as per caste customs and petitioner

joined matrimonial house after marriage. However, after few

months she was subjected to physical and mental harassment

for demand of additional dowry. On 10.09.2023 she was forced

to come back to their parents house at Adilabad in view of

continued harassment. Petitioner lodged complaint with the

police and despite counseling she was not allowed to reside with

the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed Crime No.70 of 2024

under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
2 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.403 of 2024

before Women P.S., Adilabad. Petitioner has also filed

D.V.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of Special JFCM Mobile (PCR)

Court at Adilabad and the same are pending. It is further

contended that in the meanwhile respondent filed O.P for

dissolution of marriage vide H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 before the

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

5. It is contended that petitioner is financially dependent on

her parents and that respondent earlier threatened the

petitioner with dire consequences and she is apprehending life

threat if she goes to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in

H.M.O.P. It is further averred that being a single lady it is

difficult for the petitioner to travel distance of 145 kilometers

from Adilabad to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in H.M.O.P

on every date of hearing and thus requested to transfer H.M.O.P

from Nizamabad to Adilabad.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in

the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the

convenience of the wife has to be considered vis-à-vis the

convenience of the husband, and therefore, the request of the

petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In support of the said

contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
3 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.403 of 2024

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gargi

Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs

A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 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 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

reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil

Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 3,

and observed as under:-

1

(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447
2
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
3
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
4 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.403 of 2024

“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 4 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 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 prefer the convenience of the wife over the

convenience of the husband.

4
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)
5 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.403 of 2024

11. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner is resident

of Adilabad and whereas H.M.O.P filed by the respondent is

pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad and in view

of the long distance between Adilabad where petitioner is

residing to Nizamabad where H.M.O.P is pending, it is difficult

for her to travel alone on every date of hearing. It is also case of

the petitioner that she was threatened by the respondent and

also has fear of threat if she attends proceedings at Nizamabad

in connection with H.M.O.P filed by the respondent

12. It is also relevant to note that DVC filed by the petitioner

is pending before the Court at Adilabad, whereas HMOP filed by

the respondent-husband is pending before the Court at

Nizamabad and the respondent has to appear before the DVC

case pending before Adilabad.

13. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and

H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge at Nizamabad, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of
6 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.403 of 2024

the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, for disposal in accordance

with law.

15. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, shall

transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024

duly indexed, to the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, preferably

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 27.02.2025
Bw