Dr. Chinthakrinda Mounika v. Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit me to defend the Tr.C.M.P.No. 2O2 ot 2025 in the capacity of Party-in- person in the interest of iustice. 1 lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar, S/o MiryalaYadagiri, Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o H.No:- 1-103, Thirumala Medical Hall, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District ...PETITION ER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND Dr. chinthakrinda Mounika, wo Dr Miryala Naresh Kumar, Aged about 31 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o Plot No's.- 19 and 20 Part, Enclave Colony, Bdlapur, Badangpet, Hyderabad ...RESPON DE NT/PETITION E R/RES PON DENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 0110512025 in l.A.No. '1 of 2005 in TRCMP No 202 of 2025 by dismissing the Transfer CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. SOURABH AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondents: DT.MIRYALA NARESH KUMAR (Party-in-Person) The Court made the following: ORDER ) IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA TRANSFER CML MISCELLANEOUS PETITOIN NO.2O2 of 2025 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER. 2025 Between: Dr. Chinthakrinda Mounika Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar ORDER: Petitioner ...Respondent 1 Heard Mr. Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar - respondent/Party- in-person. Perused the record.

2. The Tr.C.M.P is filed by the petitioner/vvife seeking transfer of G.W.O.P No.l 1 of 2024 from the file of the II A.dditional District and Sessions Judge at Huzurnagar to the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The background facts leading to the filing of the Tr.C.M.P are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, married on 27.06.2019 at Karmanghat, L.B.Nagar as per Hindu .,,. rites and customs. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, due to harassment and other problems, there were disputes. While things stood thus, the petitioner conceived and gave birth to a child on 24.O8.2O2I. Thereafter, due to disputes, the respondent filed O.P.No.169 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and said matter was transferred from Huzurnagar vide orders of this Court in Tr.C.M.P No.102 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024 to the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P No.374 of 2024 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner also filed Domestic Violence Case and the same is numbered as DVC No.53 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

4. The child of the petitioner is four (4) years old and is residing with her at Badangpet which is at a distance of 2OO Kms. from Huzurnagar. Without the assistance of her father, the petitioner is unable to travel to Huzurnagar to attend the G.W.O.P. Therefore, Tr.C.M.P is filed seeking transfer of G.W.O.P from the file of the II Additional District Judge at / t *ilrr*6*".. ; I { 7 ) 3:: Huzurnagar to the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

5. The respondent filed counter opposing the Tr.C.M.p denying all the factual allegations made by the petitioner about the respondent. Said allegations are not necessary for the disposal of the present Tr.C.M.P. Suffice it to say that the respondent has referred to the education of the petitioner at Ukraine while pursuing medicine and her job at Rayinigudem, which is at a distance of 165 Kms. from L.B.Nagar. It is contented that the petitioner 1S capable of pursuing her medicine in a different country and is capable of pursuing her career at Rayinigudem which are at a long distance from L.B.Nagar. Hence, there is no reason why she cannot travel to pursue the G.W.O.P at Huzurnagar. Reference is made to judgments in' cases between Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Maikya Prasuna v. Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Ramana Murthyt, Usha George v. Koshy Georgez, Anindita Das v. Srijit Das3, Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharmaa and Krishna L zolg (2) ALT 1 'rzooo)-io icCgs 3 lzooo; 9 scc 197 * J (2oos) 11 scc s3s 4 veni Nagam v. Harish Nagams, wherein, it is held that the convenience of '*,ife alone cannot be a ground for transfer. Further reference is made to the case between s.P. chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath6, wherein, it is held that any person who approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. There is also allegation made by the respondent that r.r,hile his rvife is pursuing her employment in Rayinigudem, his son is living with his wife's sister at Bangalore. Further, it is alleged that on account of displacement, the child is suffering with ill health and psychological problems. In view of all these aforementioned grounds, the respondent prayed that the petition for transfer be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the versions presented by both the parties, this court in a Tr.c.M.p involving a minor is guided by the provisions of Guardians and wards Act. In this Tr.c.M.p., the guidelines laid down in N.c.v.Aishwarya v. A.s. saravana Karthik Shaz involving matrimonial matters cannot be looked into. Therefore, all the citations listed by the respondent -a4 lzott'14 scc 1so s 6 (rgg+) 1 scc 1 ' 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 f, opposing the Tr.C.M.P., are not applicable and therefore, not considered

7. The only provision that determines the jurisdiction of a G.W.O.P is Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, wherein, it is held that the Guardians and Wards O.P has to be filed in a Court having jurisdiction over the residence of the minor child.

8. [n the instant case, this Court has to examine the factual aspect of whether the child is residing at Huzurnagar or Ranga Reddy District or Bangalore to decide the fate of the Tr.C.M.P. In that regard, while the case of respondent is that the child is residing at Bangalore and that place of residence of a child is the natural habitat i.e. Huzurnagar, where the respondent is residing. The claim of the petitioner is that the minor child is residing at Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. There is no evidence about the minor child living 1n Bangalore. The respondent has vehementl5r "ot,ended that the Section 9 of Guardians and Wards O.P cannot be interpreted literally to mean the place where the child is residing rather it is the jurisdiction of the child which is natural habitat and therefore Huzurnagar is the right place for filing the G.W.O.P. 6

9. The petitioner has produced a copy of invoice of Nirmala Educational Society, which shows a School by name Lighthouse located at Mayurinagar, R.R.District, showing that the child is admitted into said School for the academic year April, 2025 to March, 2026. A total amount of Rs.53,000/- is paid towards annual fee, registration fee and tuition fee. This invoice clearly establishes that the child is studying in the jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District at Mayurinagar. Notwithstanding the differences between the petitioner and the respondent and other issues betr,r,een them '*,hich are going to be adjudicated 1n various cases pending before various forums, in the present case, in view of Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, since the child is residing in the jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District, the relief sourght for is granted

10. In the result, the Tr.C.M.P is allowed and G.W.O.P No.l L of 2024 pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Huzurnagar, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The court concerned is directed to transfer the entire bundle duly indexed within a period of one (1) month 7 from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY/ SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR oSECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional District and Session Judge at Huzurnagar 2. The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 3. One CC to Sri. Sourabh agarwal, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar, Party-in-person [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies PTiPSL W \ HIGH COURT DATEDi 1511212025 I ORDER IHE S: k c (' 23 tit P5 TRCMP.No.202 of 2025 Dr- - ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P I \'ll i i