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 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 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, 2022 SCC Online SC 1199held 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 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 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, gen