The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.366 ot 2025 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajigiri district pending disposal of the Transfer CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner :M/S. ALLURI RAGHU RAMA ARAVA Counsel forthe Respondent: MS. MAMATA YANNAM The Court made the following: ORDER IN TIIE, HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TtIT.] IIONOURABLL SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA TR. (rlVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.320 of 2025 l5'h DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 Behveen: Pallc Chaithanya. Palle Somashekar. ORDI'It ANT) ...Pctitioner ...Rc:;pondent Fleard lWs.Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava, leamed counsel for the petitioncr an<j N4s. \'anam Marnatha, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Tr.C.Vl.P. is frled by tlte petitioner-wife seeking transter ol' F.Cl,O.l'.No...1(r(r ol- 2()25 on the file of the Judge, Additional Farnily Court, lvledchal-Malkalgiri District at Kushaiguda, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge ('otrrt at N4ahbubabad District. l. .l hc lrctitioner and rcspondent were married on 21.04.2022 at Kistapurarn Village, Rayapathi Mandal, Warangal District, as per Hindu Rites and ('ustorns. According to the petitioner, dowry including cash, gold, household arricles rvere given at the time of marriage, Thereafter, due RY,J TRCMP 32O 2025 to harassment on the part of the respondent and his family members, wherein the petitioner was beaten and abused in filthy language, the petitioner had to lodge criminal complaint vide Cr.No.344 of 2024 under Section 498-4 of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at 'l'homrr Police Station on26.12.2024. The couple are blessed with a child and said child is living with the petitioner. The petitioner also filed M.C.No.6 of 2025 which is pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thom:r. Since the remaining matters i.e., the crirninal case as well as maintenance case are pending in Thorur, the petitioner sought transfer of the Family Court matter i.e., F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2025 to be translerred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad District.

1. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the avennents ol the 1'r.C.M.P. referring to the variations with respect to the dcviations in the alleged streedhan given at the time of marriage as per FIR dated

26.12.2024, reply to legal notice dated 03.09.2024 and the present-l'r.CM[). l:urther, a list of the dates is given showing the conduct of the petitioner to demonstratc the genuineness in the allegations made.'l'he respondcnt stated that the rrrarriage was performed on 20.04.2022. The child was bom on

01.02.2023 and the petitioner went to the matrirnonial house in the first rveek of August, 2023, when the child was 7 months old and left to the 2 RY,J TRCMP 320 2025 matrinronial housc in the second 'week o[September,2023. Thereafter after almost one year a legal notice rvas issued on 01.09.2024. The respondent got reply lcgal notice issued on 03.09.2024. Thereaiter, a meeting with the village elders was conducted on 20.10.2024. After all these efforts, the petitioner went and lodged a criminal complaint with P.S. Thorur on

26.12.2024 and cornplaint with Sakhi Center at Mahabubabad on

07.06.2025. ln this entire sequence of events, the respondent alleges that there was hardly any time spent by tlie pctitioner in her matrimonial house and aftei one year ol separation the criminal complaint was given and legal notice was issued rvith various allegations. It is further pleaded that when there was a meetiug rvith the elders, the elders have advised the petitioner's mother to change hcr attitudc torvards the respondent and not to interfere in their farnily mattcrs. [urthcr, the distance between Charlapalam Village to Medchal-Malka-igiri District Court at Kushaiguda is 165 kms, the respondent's native place is at Kodakandla village, Jangaon District and he does not lrave arrY inl]uerrce whatsoever to threaten the petitioner or her parents. In t-act. onc pcrson b1 name Nagi Reddy introduced himself as a personal assistant to a politician Late Vivekananda Reddy and threatened the rcspondcnt antl his parcnrs at the police station premises on 12.08.2025. T[re respondent made retercncc to judgment between Anandita Das v. l RY,J TRCMP 320 2025 Srijit Dast, wherein it is held that presence of a chitd is not an automatic ground lor transfer. Lastly, it is also. pleaded that the petitioner is well educated post graduate and with the availability ofadvanced transportation facilities and implementation of free bus facilities it does not pose any significant inconvenience to travel upto 165 kilometres. It is also pleaded that when the petitioner is expecting maintenance from him there is a moral obligation on her to support his convenience to work. On the basis of the tbllowing subrnissions, the respondent prayed that the Tr.C.M.P. be disurissed.

5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is a houservile with no sourcc of incorne and a minor child is dependent on her. The petitioner and her child are residing with her parents at Charlapalam Village, I'horroor Mandal, Mahabubabad District. Whereas the respondcnt ts a private ernployee residing at Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In proot'thereol. thc rental agrcement dated 27.03.2024 between lessor B. Shobha and thc resl-rondent IS produced to show that the respondent IS residing at Changicharla. lrledchal, Ghatkesar. The petitioner allcges harassrnent on the part of the respondent and his family members with demand of additional dorvry, whereas the respondent is denying the sante, re l'erring to ' (20...,0) g scc rsz 4 RY,J TRCMP 320 2025 the discrepancies in the contentions r,rade by the petitiorier before different lorums.

6. Be that as it nray, lor the purpose of transfer, as per a catena of judgments delivered by th: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the convenience of the wile has to be given primacy. In the same context, there are other judgments w,hich have hcld that convenience of the wife or presence of a chitd or distance betrveen the residents of both the parties need not be a ground and that eacl: case iias to be examined on its owrl merits for deciding the issue ol transt'er'. The petitioner has already filed criminal case as well as rnaintenance in the Court's at Thomrr. Currently, the F.C.O.P filed by the rcspondent is in Family Court at Medchal- Malkajgiri l)istrict. In a Farnilr Cornl case, there is need for appearance of the parties on cvcry datc ol'hcaring. rvhereas the same is not true in the case of H.M.O.P. flled belbre a Senior ClivilJudge's Court.

7. In ths instant case. even in case the F.C.O.P. 366 of 2025 1S transferred from the tlle ot' thc- Additional Family Court at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District to the file ol the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, the sanrc is not likell'to cause frequent inconvenience to the respondent. The resgrorrdenr nra). be expected to appear at the tir.re of counselling and at rhc tinrc ol' lcading cvidencc while his presence is not 5 RY,J TRCMP 320 2025 required at the cvery date of adjoumment. Keeping in view the social and financial status ol the petitioner, given the distance between Mahbubabad and Medchal-Malkajgiri District, this Cor.rrt deems it fit and proper to allow the Tr.C.M.P.

8. In the result, thc Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Kushaiguda, Medchat-Malkajgiri, is rvithdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judgc Court at Mahabubabad District. The Court concerned is directeci to transler the entire bundle duly indexed within a period of one month lrorn the date ol leceipt ol copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed To, SD/- T.SRINIVASAREDDY SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY' \ SECTION OFFICER 1 The Judge, Additional Family Court at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajigiri district 2 The Senior Civil Judge at tvlahabubabad District 3 One CC to M/S ALLURI RAGHU RAMA ARAVA, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI MAMATA YANNAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ,M w ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 ORDER TRCMP.No.320 of 2025 D\ ''rt 24JAN2026 * * ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS )rD a )],U'