M. Niharika vs Macharla Santosh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4565 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4565 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

M. Niharika vs Macharla Santosh on 7 April, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA



                   TR.C.M.P.NO.506 OF 2024

ORDER

This transfer petition is filed by the petitioner seeking this

Court to transfer F.C.O.P.No.748 of 2023 pending on the file of

I-Additional Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to the

Court of District Judge, Bhupalpally District at Bhupalpally.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Sadiq Ali, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri R.S.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the marriage of petitioner with the respondent was performed on

09.12.2020 at Peddapur Village, Bhupalaplly Mandal,

Jaishankar Bhupalpally District. After the marriage petitioner

joined the respondent and both started their marital life at

Hyderabad and lived happily for some period. The petitioner

conceived and during her 7th month pregnancy, her father took

her with him to their village for delivery. Since then, petitioner

observed drastic change in the nature and attitude of the

respondent. The respondent without enquiring about the health

condition of petitioner started demanding to transfer land

admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in his favour which was accepted

by the father of petitioner. Further, the respondent also

demanded the amount granted by the Government to the newly

married woman under Kalyana Lakshmi Scheme. The petitioner

gave birth to a male child and the same was informed to the

respondent but the respondent and his parents came to the

house of parents of petitioner after one month of birth of the

child.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner lodged

a complaint against the respondent and his parents in Koyyur

Police Station for the offences under Sections 290, 306, 341

r/w.Sections 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

and FIR was registered vide FIR No.56 of 2023. Further, due to

unbearable harassment of respondent, petitioner filed complaint

vide FIR No.61 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 498-A of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein

charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as

C.C.No.1338 of 2023 pending on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. Petitioner

also filed D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 on the file of Principal Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Bhupalpally and M.C.No.28 of 2023

praying to grant maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month and all

the said cases are pending at Bhupalpally. The respondent filed

F.C.O.P.No.748 of 2023 before the I-Additional Family Court,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad for grant of decree of divorce and

petitioner filed counter denying the allegations leveled against

her. As the petitioner is residing with her parents at

Bhupalpally, she cannot attend the Court at Hyderabad, though

learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner is

in Hyderabad, she never resided in Hyderabad. Hence, prayed

this Court to transfer F.C.O.P. No.748 of 2023 from the file of

I-Additional Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to the

Court of District Judge, Bhupalpally District.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that petitioner is frequently changing her address. In

D.V.C, and Maintenance cases, she has mentioned her address

as rented house whereas in the present case, she mentioned

that she is residing with her parents. Further, the case is at the

fag end; the petitioner's evidence is completed; Rws.1 to 3 were

already examined; the evidence of Rw.4 was eschewed and Rw.5

was partly examined. At this stage, no purpose would be served

if the matter is transferred to the Court at Bhupalpally. He

further contended that when the contention of petitioner is that

she is unable to attend the Court, petitioner undertakes to

examine the witnesses on the same day and he also undertakes

to pay the travelling charges of the witnesses including the

petitioner herein. Once the evidence is completed the next stage

is arguments and petitioner is not at all required at that stage,

even if, petitioner wants to attend the Court, respondent will pay

the travelling charges including her stay. As such, requested

the Court to dismiss this transfer petition.

6. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent relied on

the judgment in Anindita Das Vs Srijit Das 1 , wherein in

paragraph Nos.3 and 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as

under :

"3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore,

1 (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 197

clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.

4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met."

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel

and the material on record, this transfer petition is filed stating

that petitioner is residing along with her parents at Peddapur of

Bhupalpally District and she is taking care of her three and

half-year old child, as such, she cannot attend the Court at

Hyderabad. The further contention of petitioner is that

respondent is attending the Court in the matters pertaining to

DVC, MC and Section 498-A IPC cases filed by the petitioner.

Therefore, if the F.C.O.P., is transferred to Bhupalpally, no

prejudice will be caused to the respondent and it will be

convenient for the petitioner also. However, the record shows

that in FCOP, trial is already commenced and the evidence of