Telangana High Court
Pataji Lokeshwari Alias Praise Hemima vs Sirigiri Prashanth on 17 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.21 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Samala Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
N. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
entire record.
2. This petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. seeking transfer of
F.C.O.P.No.698 of 2023 pending on the file of the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
to the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Siddipet.
3. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband respectively.
Their marriage was performed on 02.02.2022 as per Christian rites and
customs. After their marriage, the couple lived at Sainikpuri,
Secunderabad. The couple was blessed with a male child on 28.10.2022.
Thereafter, due to various reasons the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.698 of
2023 seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. It is further
alleged that the petitioner is a psycho and has suicidal tendency. The
petitioner initially filed Tr.C.M.P.No.389 of 2023 and the same was
withdrawn as she was unable to pay fee to the Senior Counsel. The
petitioner resides at Gajwel which is at a distance of 60 kms from the
RY,J
Tr.CMP_21_2025
Courts at Medchal-Malkajgiri District, it takes three hours to travel due to
traffic and by the time she reaches Gajwel her son would be pathetic and
falls asleep waiting for her. Respondent is having decent salary and is
avoiding maintaining the petitioner and their son, as such he can travel
without much effort. Hence, sought transfer of the F.C.O.P.
4. The respondent opposed the transfer by filing counter alleging
suppression of material facts. According to the respondent, the petitioner is
a practicing advocate and had resorted to suppression of material facts
about her residence. To buttress the same reference is made to filing of
criminal case in Cr.No.880 of 2023 on the file of the P.S. Jagadgirigutta
under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, wherein the address of the petitioner is shown as Plot No.483,
Mahadevpur Colony, Devender Nagar, Near Annapurna Devi Temple,
Gajularamaram, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The said case is currently
pending on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Malkajgiri. Further, O.S.No.851 of 2023 filed seeking injunction for
restraining the petitioner from creating disturbance at matrimonial home is
also pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District. The petitioner filed F.C.O.S.No.14 of 2024 on the file
of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court,
RY,J
Tr.CMP_21_2025
Malkajgiri. Further, F.C.O.P.No.698 of 2023 filed by the respondent is
also pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-
Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In view of the filing of cases
by the petitioner at Medchal Malkajgiri District Courts, the respondent
opposed the transfer on the ground of suppression of material facts.
5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner produced
copy of residential certificate showing the address of the petitioner at
Gajwel. It is argued that the petitioner is residing at Gajwel and therefore,
upon verification she was permitted to file maintenance case at Gajwel. It
is also emphasized that there is a distance of 60 kms between Gajwel and
Medchal-Malkajgiri and it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as she is facing life threat from the respondent
and his other family members.
6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the
cause titles of the O.S.No.851 of 2023, F.C.O.S.No.14 of 2024 and
C.C.No.798 of 2024, which are pending in the jurisdiction of the Medchal-
Malkajgiri District Courts, wherein the address of the respondent is shown
at Gajularamaram, Hyderabad.
7. In response, learned counsel for petitioner claimed that all the
matters would be transferred to Gajwel by initiating appropriate
RY,J
Tr.CMP_21_2025
proceedings. It is argued that withdrawal of the previous transfer civil
miscellaneous petition is no bar and there is no need to seek liberty to file
fresh transfer civil miscellaneous petition.
8. A perusal of the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by this Court in
Tr.C.M.P.No.389 of 2023 shows that the petitioner herein has withdrawn
the said Tr.C.M.P., but no liberty was sought by her to file a fresh
Tr.C.M.P. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Upadhyay and co.
vs. State of U.P. 1, held that it is not a permissible practice to challenge the
same order over again after withdrawing the Special Leave Petition without
obtaining permission of the Court for withdrawing it with liberty to move
for special leave again subsequently. The said judgment was referred and
confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Satheesh V.K. vs. Federal
Bank Limited 2. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner had suppressed filing of
Tr.C.M.P.No.389 of 2023 before this Court and furthermore, she withdrew
the said Tr.C.M.P. without any liberty to file a fresh petition, as such this
Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
9. The petitioner being a practicing advocate would be aware of legal
course of seeking liberty while withdrawing a case. Even otherwise, the
MANU/SC/0755/1998
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2046
RY,J
Tr.CMP_21_2025
petitioner can defend the present F.C.O.P. before the Medchal-Malkajgiri
Courts as there are other cases which are filed by her and against her before
the same Medchal-Malkajgiri Courts. The petitioner is always at liberty to
take proper legal course, if there is any threat to her from the respondent
and his family members.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Tr.C.M.P. lacks merits,
therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition filed by
the petitioner seeking transfer of the F.C.O.P. and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
11. In the result, the Tr.C.M.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 17.11.2025
GVR
