HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Tr.CMP.No. 627 of 2011. DATED 22nd December, 2011 BETWEEN Chillara Krishna Shravani …Petitioner And Chillara Leela Madhava Sarma ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Tr.CMP.No. 627 of 2011. ORDER: The petitioner-wife invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 CPC seeking to transfer OP.No. 830 of 2011 filed by the respondent-husband and pending consideration before the Court of the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to the Court of the Family Judge, Guntur, to be tried along with M.C.No. 86 of 2011. Heard. Perused the case file. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 19.12.2008. Immediately after the nuptials, the respondent-husband started harassing the petitioner-wife mentally and physically. It is also stated in the accompanying affidavit that the respondent- husband used to insist the petitioner-wife to watch uncensored prohibited films and repeat her to do the same; and that he used to insist her to consume his urine and stools; and that he used to harass her mentally and physically as and when she did not act according to himself and his relatives wishes. Unable to bear the said harassment, she earlier lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram (L&O) Police Station, Guntur, which was registered as Crime No. 189/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, however, the same was withdrawn owing to an undertaking given by the father of the respondent-husband. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent-husband did not change his mind and as usual continued harassing the petitioner- wife. After she was thrown out of the marital home, she lodged another complaint before the same police station i.e. Pattabhipuram (L&O) Police Station, Guntur, on 6.8.2011 and the same was registered as Crime No. 268 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. She also instituted maintenance case in M.C.No. 86 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, seeking maintenance from the respondent- husband and the same is pending consideration. It is further stated that as a counterblast to the said proceedings, the respondent-husband filed OP.No. 830 of 2011 under Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending consideration before the Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. It is therefore her complaint that the respondent-husband through some unidentified persons is threatening her with dire consequences if she attends the Court and contests the said divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband denied the averments made by the petitioner-wife. While reiterating the averments made in the divorce petition, he strenuously opposed the transfer petition. It is relevant to note that although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straightjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised within due care, caution and circumspection. As can be seen from the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-wife after being thrown out of marital home is now staying with her relatives at Guntur and has been pursuing the Maintenance Case as well as complaint lodged before the Police for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. On the other hand, the respondent-husband who is working as a Software Engineer in T.C.S. is staying at Hyderabad. The petitioner-wife being a recently marriekd woman, it is very difficult for her to travel alone all the way from Guntur to Hyderabad for every hearing in the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband. Furthermore, she also stated the alleged threat to her life in the hands of the respondent-husband in case she attends the Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in connection with the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent- husband. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajani Kishore Paradeshi Vs. Kishore Babul Paradeshi ( 2005 (12) SCC 237), Sunita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Anjali Ashok Sadwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadwani (2009 AIR SC 1374) that paramount convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband in the cases of matrimonial disputes. Having due regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, OP.No.830 of 2011 pending on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Guntur, to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law, along with M.C.No. 86 of 2011 which is pending on its file, There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd December, 2011. Msnro