HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2023 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nirmal, filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Mancherial.

2. Heard Sri. K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 23.11.2017 at Laxminarasimha Swami Devasthanam, Dharmapuri, Jagitial District, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion and that out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child, who is about 5 years. It is averred that disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and respondent and petitioner filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2024 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate(Excise) at Mancherial. The petitioner has also filed G.W.O.P.No.4 of 2024 before District Judge, Mancherial, seeking custody of child and the respondent is appearing before both the Courts. In the meanwhile, respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2023, before Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that distance between Nirmal to Mancherial is about 150 kms and the petitioner is not in a position to travel such a distance as she has to take care of her minor child who is suffering from hearing disability. Learned counsel further submitted that as the respondent is appearing in two cases i.e., D.V.C.No.1 of 2024 and G.W.O.P.No.4 of 2024, in Mancherial, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2023 is transferred to Mancherial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and further contended that respondent is now unemployed and it is difficult for him to attend three cases at Mancherial and that the appearance of the respondent may be dispensed with, whenever his appearance is not necessary.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the material available on record.

7. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

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

A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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.”

9. The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya’s case (2nd cited supra), has been

1 2022 SCC Online SC 1199

reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil2, 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 c