In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is paramount when considering the transfer of cases, as established by judicial precedents.

ORDER:

The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking to withdraw OS No.207 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler, and transfer the same to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at KMR Function Hall, Vinayaka Nagar, Kadapa, on 29.11.2021, as per Sunni Muslim rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa District. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before I Town Police Station, Kadapa, under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1032 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed D.V.C.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. The petitioner pleaded that she filed FCOP No.187 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Family Judge, Kadapa, under Section 281 of Mohammedan Law read with Section 9 of the Family Court Act , 1984, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, and all the above said cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Kadapa.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has filed OS No.207 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler, under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, and Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act , 1937, seeking for dissolution of marriage. He further contend that it is very difficult for the petitioner, being a woman, depending upon her parents’, to travel at a distance of more than 105 Kms. from Kadapa to Piler without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw OS No.207 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler, and to transfer the same to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa.

4. Heard Ms. C.S. Hema, learned counsel, representing Sri Dr. P. B. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.

5. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA ¹, held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.”

6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627] 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.”

7. On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in vi