Telangana High Court
Dr. Menchu Satya Rajashree vs Dr.Dantoori Pandu Goud on 13 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Tr.C.M.P.No.139 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Someshwar Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri B.Sridhar Babu, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed
under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by
the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.15 of
2025 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bhongir, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga
Reddy District.
3. The reasons cited for transfer are that the petitioner
has two and half years old child and that she is a practicing
Dentist and it would be difficult for her to travel from her
house at Bandlaguda to the Court at Bhongir to defend the
HMOP.
4. The respondent filed counter-affidavit and written
arguments opposing the transfer on the ground that he is a
practicing Doctor and his presence is essential in Bhongir as
he is running a Diagnostic Centre. Further, it is pleaded that
HMOP is a civil matter which is filed under the provisions
of CPC, wherein the presence of the petitioner is not
required on every date of hearing as against the cases
pending before the Family Court under Section 30 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984. It is further pleaded that the
petitioner can always defend the case through her counsel
and her presence is not required as her evidence can be
recorded through skype or video conferencing.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner intends to attend the matter on
every date of hearing and therefore, her convenience has to
be taken into consideration. In that context, reliance has
been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Vandana Sharma vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma 1, wherein it was
held that when wife is having two minor daughters and she
was pregnant and there is no male member to accompany
(2008) 11 SCC 768
her from Punchkula to Delhi, transfer is made from
Tis Hazari Courts at Delhi to the Court of the District
Judge, Punchkula. Similarly, in the case of Sumita Singh vs.
Kumar Sanjay and Ors 2, the Honble Supreme Court has
transferred Matrimonial Case No.30 of 2000 pending before
the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ara,
Bhojpur, Bihar, to the District Judge, Delhi. Lastly, in the
case of Thatiparthi Yasoda vs Thatiparthi Srinivasulu 3, the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeeta Alias Shreya vs. Prasant
Vijay Wargiya 4, held that the convenience of the wife must
prevail particularly when the wife has a 2 ½ years old child.
6. Upon considering the rival contentions, it is seen
that the petitioner is a Dentist, living in the jurisdiction of
Ranga Reddy District, with 2½ years old child, whereas the
respondent is a Radiologist, living in Bhongir and running a
AIR 2002 SC 396
Tr CMP No.20 of 2021,dt 23.02.2022
2004 13 SCC 407
Diagnostic Centre and there can be no urgency to be
attended in a private diagnostic centre.
7. Keeping in view the convenience of the petitioner-
wife, the relief sought by her is granted.
8. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is allowed. H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2025 stands
transferred from the file of the 1 Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bhongir, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The Court concerned is
hereby directed to transmit the entire case file relating to
H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2025, after duly indexed, within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, under intimation to the other side. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Date: 13.11.2025
rkk
