IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Tr.C.M.P. No. 533 of 2024

23^rd JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Mrs. Gawwaji @ Neerati Satya, Mancherial Town and District.

…Petitioner AND Mr. Gawwaji Aravind Kumar, Karimnagar Town and District.

…Respondent

ORDER

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner-wife to transfer F.C.O.P. No. 154 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Family Court at Karimnagar to the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Mancherial.

2. Heard Mr. D. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Katli Sravya, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The Tr.C.M.P is filed by the petitioner-wife alleging that she was married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 19.12.2020 at Padmanayaka Kalyana Mandapam, Godhavari Road, Mancherial Town and District. Thereafter, due to disputes, the petitioner has filed D.V.C. No. 24 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial. In addition, there is also a criminal complaint viz., Crime No. 63 of 2023 before Women Police Station, Srirampur, Mancherial District, under Section 498(A) of the IPC, against the respondent and his family members. The respondent has filed F.C.O.P. No. 154 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar.

4. The petitioner submitted that the distance between Mancherial and Karimnagar is about 80 kms and she is a house wife with no income and would have much inconvenience to travel to Karimnagar to defend the F.C.O.P. Hence, sought transfer.

5. The respondent opposed the transfer by filing written counter alleging that the distance between both the towns is only 80 kms and there is not much hardship to travel due to the transportation available. Further, it is submitted that just cause has to be shown for transfer. In that context, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of this Court in Kenche Divya v. K. Shiva Kumar (vide Tr.C.M.P. No. 268 of 2019), wherein it is held that inconvenience of the petitioner-wife to attend the Court cannot be a ground to grant the relief of transfer unless strong and justifiable cause for such transfer is shown. Further, reference is made to judgment of this Court in case of Naga Vamshi v. Sureekha Smitha (vide Tr.C.M.P. No. 35 of 2021), wherein it is held that the D.V.C. proceedings, the criminal proceedings pending before the Courts of Magistrate and the F.C.O.P. proceedings pending before the Family Court, are to be tried independently and there is no prejudice caused if they are not clubbed together to conduct joint trial.

6. In the instant case, there is no plea for clubbing all the matters. Therefore, the judgment in Naga Vamshi (Supra) is not relevant for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Bijjala alias Pillamari Thamika v. Pillmari Vivek (vide Tr.C.M.P. No. 504 of 2023), wherein reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha (reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199). In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 par