Telangana High Court
Manchala Manasa Mekala Manasa, vs Venkatesh Yadav Manchala on 18 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.434 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of O.P.No.32 of 2024, pending on the file of Family Court- cum-IV District and Sessions Court at Adilabad to Senior Civil Judge- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Peddapalli.
2. Heard Sri M.Mallesham, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.Surender Reddy, 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 affidavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., are that petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 07.06.2023, at Gayathri Gardens, near Ayyappa Mandir, Chanda Road at Adilabad, as per the customs prevailing in Hindu Community. Immediately, after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial house of respondent; that thereafter disputes and differences arose between them, and the respondent filed D.O.P.No.32 of 2024, before the Family court-cum-IV Additional district and Sessions Judge at Adilabad, seeking for divorce; that the petitioner is now residing with her old aged parents at Kapulapalli Mandal, Peddapalli District; that she has no independent source of income and is dependent on her parents; that the distance between Peddapali to Adilabad is 190 kms., 2 therefore, she cannot travel such long distance to appear on every date of hearing in OP.No.32 of 2024. Hence, the present Tr.CMP. is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that the petitioner is pursuing MBA at Mother Theressa College of Engineering & Technology, Peddapalli, and she cannot travel from Peddapalli to Adilabad on each date of hearing in OP.No.32 of 2024, thus, prayed to allow the Tr.CMP.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that except saying that the petitioner has no independent income and she is residing along with her parents' at Peddapalli, no other grounds are raised by the petitioner for transfer of OP from Adilabad to Peddapalli. He further submits that respondent is ready and willing to bear the expenses incurred by the petitioner for attending hearing at Adilabad in OP.No.32 of 2024. He finally contended that Tr.CMP is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has given earnest consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel and perused the record.
7. Perusal of record would disclose that the Tr.CMP is filed principally on the ground that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Peddapalli; that she has no independent income and she 3 is dependent on her parents. Further, the distance between Peddapalli to Adilabad is 190 kms.; that it would be quite difficult for her to travel all the way from Peddapalli to Adilabad, to attend the Court proceedings on each date of hearing in OP.No.32 of 2024; and except the aforesaid grounds no other grounds are raised.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is pursuing MBA at Mother Theressa College of Engineering & Technology, Peddapalli, and also placed on record the bonafide certificate issued by the college to the effect that the petitioner is pursuing MBA in the said college.
9. The specific case of the respondent is that the respondent is ready and willing to bear the travelling expenses of petitioner to attend the Court at Adilabad; and that the grounds raised by the petitioner that she is residing with her parents at Peddapally and is unable to travel from Peddapalli to Adilabad, do not constitute valid grounds for transfer of OP.No.32 of 2024.
10. Learned Counsel for respondent placed reliance on the following Judgments/orders:
(i) Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das 2006 (9) SCC 197
(ii) Order in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, dated 25.06.2024
(iii) Common order in Tr.CMP. No.809 of 2016, dated 06-12-2018. 4
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das's case (cited supra), filed by the petitioner/wife therein was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was directed to pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi.
12. Tr.CMP.No.64 of 2024 filed by the petitioner/wife therein was dismissed vide orders dated 25.06.2024 on the ground that both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal and as such, there is no reason to transfer the FCOP pending in the Court at Nirmal to the Courts at Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, as sought for by the petitioner therein.
13. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Peddapalli and respondent is residing at Adilabad, unlike in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, where both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal, therefore, the facts of the said case are not similar with that of present case and hence, the said order is of no aid to the respondent.
14. Tr.CMP.No.809 of 2016 and batch, which were filed by the petitioners/wives therein, were dismissed by learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 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 5 CPC in matrimonial cases and further, held that the cases of the petitioners/wives therein does not fall in any of the said guidelines and also the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others 1 and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners /wives therein seeking transfer of the cases.
15. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and the orders passed by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the Tr.CMP cannot be entertained on merely asking without there being any valid and sufficient ground. In the present case except saying that the petitioner is residing at Peddapalli with her parents and is unable to travel such long distance from Peddapalli to Adilabad, no other grounds are raised. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court is that the petitioner is not made out a case for transfer of OP.No.32 of 2024.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances 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 O.P.No.32 of 2024, pending on the file of Family Court-cum-IV Addl.District and Sessions Court at Adilabad. 1
2008(3) SCC 659 6
ii) The learned Judge, Family Court -cum-IV Addl.District and Sessions Court at Adilabad, is directed not to insist for the appearance of the petitioner on each and every date of adjournment, except the date on which her presence is required for adjudication of the matter.
17. With the above observation, the present Tr.CMP is disposed of. No costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 18.07.2025 tk