The Honble Supreme Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das r, filed by the

Petition Under Section 24 of the C. P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct to withdrawal of HMOP No. .15 of 2024 pending on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy and transfer the same to the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak, Medak District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurhstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in HMOP No. 15 of 2024 pending on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vijay B. Paropkari Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S. Bhooma Goud The Court made the following: ORDER .:::, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 39O of 2o24 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of HMOP.No.lS of 2024, pending on the frle of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy to the Court of Senior Civil ,Judge, Medak, Medak District.

2. Heard Sri Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for the 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 afhdavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., are that petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their lnarriage was performed on 26.05.2024 as per the customs prevailing in Hindu Community; that immediately, after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial house of respondent; that thereafter disputes and differences arose between them ald the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the respondent and his family members; that ultimately the petitioner was necked out from her matrimonial house; that she w-as residing presently with her old aged parents at Narsapoor of Medak District. It is further averred that the // / ) petitioner filed complaint under section 498-4' of IPC ald Sections -T 3 ald 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the hle of P.S.Narsapur and FIR No. 179 of 2024 was registered ald the same is pending; that the respondent filed HMOP.No. 15 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, seeking dissolution of marriage. It is further averred that the petitioner is now residing with her old aged pa-rents at Narsapur of Medak District; and that the distalce between Narsapur to Kamareddy is 95 Kms., therefore, she cannot travel such long distance without assistance of her famiiy members, to appear on every date of hearing in HMOP.No.1S of

2024. Hence, the present Tr.CMP. is filed.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the submissions made in the afhdavit filed in support of TT.CMP and contended that the I sarne are baseless and invented for the purpose of filitrg the present TT.CMP and prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent reiterated the averments made in the petition and counter, respectively

6. This Court has given earnest consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel and perused the record. \ \ \ J 7 . Perusal of record would disclose that the Tr. CMp is filed principally on the ground that the petitioner is residing with her old aged parents at Narsapur of Medak District; that the respondent is aggressive and on several occasions beat the petitioner; that there is threat to her life if she attends the court at Kamareddy in connection with HMOp.No.15 of 2024. Further, the distance between Narsapur to Kamareddy is 95 kms.; that it would be quite difhcult for her to travel rvithout assistance to attend the Court proceedings on each date of hearing in HMOp.No.lS of

2024. B. The specific: case of the respondent is that the grounds raised by the petitioner that she is residing with her pbrents at Narsapur and that she cannot travel from Narsapur to Kamareddy, do not constitute valid grounds for transfer of HMOp.No. S LI,ZOZ+.

9. The Honble Supreme Court in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das r, filed by the petitioner therein/wife, has dismissed the petition directing the respondent to pay ail travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when she is required to attend the Court at Deihi. 1 zooo 1s1 scc rsz 4

10. The learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Tr.CMP.No.8O9 of 2016 and batch, which were filed by the petitioners/wives therein, vide common order dated

06.12.2018. In the said common order, the learned single Judge has laid down certain guidelines to exercise the power under Section 24 CPC in matrirnonial cases and further, held that the cases of the petitioners/wives therein does not fall in any o1' the said guidelines and also the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwind.er Kaur @ Kuluinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and otherd and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners /wives therein seeking trart sfer of the cases. 1 1. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and the orders passed by the erstwhile High Court I of Andhra Pradesh, this Court is of the considered view that the TT.CMP cannot be entertained on mere asking without there being any valid and sufficient ground. In the present case except saying that the petitioner is residing at Narsapur with her old aged parents and is unable to travel such long distance from Narsapur to Kamareddy, no other grounds are raised. Therefore, the considered \ \ 'z 2oo8(3) scc 6s9 opinion of this Court is that the petitioner has not rnade out a case for trarsfer of HMOP.No.15 of 2024.

12. Considering the facts and circumsta_nces of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Tr.CMp can be disposed of with the following directions:- i) Respondent shall reimburse actual travelling expenses of the petitioner whenever she personally appears in HMOP.No 15 of 2024, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. ir) The iearned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, is directed not to insist for the appearance of the petitioner on each and every date of adjournment, except 1.he date on which her presence is required for adjudication of the matter.

13. With the above observation, the present f..Cfr,,in is disposed of. No costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any. shall stand clo sed. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFI //TRUE COPYII 1 2 3 4 F The Senior Civil Judge Kamareddy the Senior Civil Judge. UeOat<, tVleOat District. 9n" 99 to Sri Vijay 6 paropkari. eOro"rt" iOiUCr 9n" 99 to sriS Bhooma corJ. nout-"1l. fb"".i.l, Two CD Copies SL w Kam,/P Jr- r :=1-l'-- _._ .aiii - (-) 24sEPilE !':s',.,. .', (' '2 HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER TRCMP.No.390 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE TR.CMP \o