Telangana High Court
Smt. Pogula Rajini Yellaiahgari Rajini vs Sri Pogula Radhakrishna on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.42 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed
seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2024 from the Court
of Senior Civil Judge at Medak to the Court of Family
Judge at Secunderabad.
2. Heard, Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Notice sent to respondent returned as refused
and therefore, notice deemed sufficient.
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 was solemnized with the respondent-
husband on 26.04.2000 at Kammarikatta village, Tekmal
Mandal, Medak District and it was an arranged marriage.
After the marriage, petitioner joined the company of the
respondent at Shankarampet Village and Mandal, Medak
District and during her stay at matrimonial home she was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband
and his mother and unable to bear the torture and to
safeguard herself she left the matrimonial home and
2 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025
reached her parents house on 24.09.2021. Since she is
unable to maintain herself as her parents are poor she filed
M.C.No.44 of 2022 and D.V.C.No.16 of 2023 before
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak and also filed a
complaint under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of
D.P.Act.
5. It is further contended that as petitioner had no
source of income and as she was apprehending threat from
her husband, she shifted her residence from Medak to
Secunderabad. After shifting her residence from Medak to
Secunderabad, she withdrew M.C.No.44 of 2022 and
D.V.C.No.16 of 2023 from the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Medak and filed M.C.No.87 of 2024 before
Family Court, Secunderabad and also filed D.V.C (SR)
No.3253 of 2024 before IV Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad. It is contended that in the meanwhile, her
husband filed H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2024 before the Senior
Civil Judge at Medak against her for divorce.
6. It is further contended that she has apprehension
that her husband will harm her if she go to Medak Court
3 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025
and also stated that she cannot travel to Medak on every
day of hearing owing to her personal safety and it will be of
great inconvenience to her. It is further averred that
respondent is attending Maintenance Case which is
pending before Family Court at Secunderabad and D.V.C is
pending before IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad
and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the
H.M.O.P transferred from Medak to Secunderabad.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in
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 upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 held as follows:
1
(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447
2
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
4 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025
“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.”
9. 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:-
“In a country like India, important decisions
such as marriage, divorce are still taken with
the guidance and blessings of elders in the3
(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)
5 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025family. 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”.
10. 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.”
11. 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)
6 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025
12. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner and
respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was
performed on 26.04.2020 at Kammarikatta Village, Tekmal
Mandal, Medak District and filed M.C and D.V.C before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak and filed complaint
under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.
However, when petitioner shifted from Medak to Hyderabad
she has withdrawn the M.C and D.V.C from Medak and
filed fresh M.C.No.44 of 2022 before Family Court at
Secunderabad and D.V.C (SR) No.3253 of 2024 before IV
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Since respondent
has to attend matters which are pending before the Courts
of Secunderabad and Hyderabad in connection with D.V.C
and M.C, 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.
13. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and
H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge at Meedak, is withdrawn and transferred to the
7 LNA, J
TrCMP.No.42 of 2025
file of the Court of Family Judge at Secunderabad, for
disposal in accordance with law.
14. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Medak, shall
transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.48 of
2024 duly indexed, to the Court of Family Judge at
Secunderabad, preferably within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. 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
[ad_1]
Source link