Anugula Tejashwini vs Ranapangu Praveen Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 370 Tel

Telangana High Court

Anugula Tejashwini vs Ranapangu Praveen Kumar on 6 April, 2026

      IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

 TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.228 of 2025

                  6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

Between:

Anugula Tejashwini
                                              ...Petitioner
                              and

Ranapangu Praveen Kumar
                                              ...Respondent

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Reddy Mallireddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Jacob Mudi, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the record.

2. The Transfer CMP is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking

withdrawal and transfer of FCOP No.1848 of 2024 pending on

the file of the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad at

Kalpataru Complex to the file of the Family Court at Nalgonda

District.

3. The petitioner pleaded that she was married to the

respondent on 20.05.2015 according to Christian rites and ::2::

ceremonies. Immediately, she joined the matrimonial society of

the respondent at Hyderabad. The respondent and the

petitioner were blessed with two children. A son was born on

08.03.2016 and a daughter was born on 22.12.2017.

Thereafter, differences cropped up between the couple, leading

to filing of FCOP No.1848 of 2024 by the respondent on the file

of the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad at Kalpataru

complex. The petitioner claims to have stayed at her mother's

house for the purpose of pursuing M.A., English in Open

University and writing examinations from the parent's house.

Further, after the examinations, she claims to have lived at her

parent's house for 10 more days due to health issues. At that

time, the respondent did not allow the petitioner to talk to her

children and did not send the children for Dasara festival.

Further, when the petitioner and her maternal and paternal

uncle approached the respondent to settle the matter, the

respondent refused to allow the petitioner to join his family.

After Diwali festival, the respondent took the children to the

petitioner's sister-in-law's house and when the petitioner

requested to see the children, she was abused in filthy

language. The petitioner lodged a criminal complaint about the ::3::

intimidation incident to the police, and an FIR was lodged in

Crime No.274 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024 by P.S. Nalgonda.

Subsequently, after investigation, the police have registered

C.C.No.266 of 2025 against the in-laws of the petitioner for

charges under Section 85 BNS and 3 and 4 of DP Act. In that

context, the petitioner pleaded that she is a single woman,

unable to travel alone from Nalgonda to Hyderabad which is

about 120 Kms. one way by bearing the expenses and suffering

back pain and therefore, sought transfer.

4. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the

petition averments referring to each of the allegations. The

respondent, while admitting marriage and birth of children out

of the wedlock, denied the rest of the allegations made by the

petitioner against him about the reasons for marital discord,

more particularly, the respondent denying the petitioner's

request for studying M.A., English through Open University.

Further, the respondent denied the allegations made by the

petitioner about not permitting her to meet the children.

According to the respondent, it is the petitioner who has

neglected the children as well as the respondent when they

were sick. The respondent's brother and mother had to take ::4::

care of the children as well as respondent on account of the

negligent attitude of the petitioner. Further, the respondent

alleges harassment on the part of the petitioner, demanding

that he along with his family members attend the police station

for counselling.

5. With respect to grounds for transfer, it is pleaded that

the sole ground cited for transfer by the petitioner is the

distance between Hyderabad and Nalgonda, which is about 110

Kms., and the petitioner suffering with back pain. To this, the

respondent pleaded that distance alone cannot be a ground for

transfer and the petitioner suffering from back pain is false. It

is pleaded that after marriage, the petitioner and respondent

lived in a joint family wherein the petitioner did not like the

company of the family members of respondent and in that

context, picked up quarrels and caused unbearable

harassment. Finally, the respondent's brother and mother have

left the house in Hyderabad and have gone to live in Kodad. On

31.10.2024, the petitioner created a unsavory scene

threatening the respondent that she would jump from the

building and shouted 'help, help'. In that context, the

respondent had to take the petitioner and drop her at her ::5::

parents' house in Nalgonda District. The petitioner would

threaten the respondent that she would commit suicide and

mention the name of the respondent and his family members in

a suicide note. Further, on 05.11.2024, two policemen

belonging to Two Town Police Station, Nalgonda entered the

respondent's apartment complex along with uniformed

policeman of Borabanda and trespassed into his sister's house.

In that context, the respondent filed W.P.No.31275 of 2024

against the police officers who attempted to kidnap his minor

children from the possession of his sister. Also, Crl.P.No.13722

of 2024 was filed to direct the concerned police to follow the

guidelines in Arnesh Kumar's case and Section 35(3) of BNSS.

6. In November 2024, the respondent filed FCOP and then

the petitioner has filed FIR against his mother, brother, sisters

and their husbands. Further, the respondent pleaded that the

petitioner and her family are making false propaganda that the

petitioner while staying with her husband in Hyderabad to

harass him filed cases in Nagonda. The respondent apprehends

threat to his life and personal liberty and the life and personal

liberty of his children. In case, the FCOP is transferred to

Nalgonda, the respondent apprehends that the petitioner would ::6::

kidnap his children when they go to Nalgonda with the

influence of police and her uncle who is a police officer. In view

of the aforementioned, the respondent sought dismissal of the

petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in

matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife has to be

taken into consideration given the social and economic

constraints. In that context, reliance is placed upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1, wherein it is

held as follows:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they

2022 INSC 1310 ::7::

are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

8. The learned counsel for respondent argued that distance

and inconvenience and in travelling alone cannot be a ground

for transfer. It is argued that the petitioner has no interest in

living along with the family members of the respondent i.e. his

mother and brother and on account of their presence in the

house, she created trouble threatening the respondent with

suicide. On account of the unreasonable behaviour of the

petitioner, the family members of the respondent have left the

house and started residing separately at Kodad. Even so, the

petitioner on 31.10.2024 threatened the respondent with

suicide and created a scene in the apartment calling the

neighbours for help. In that situation, when the respondent

requested the petitioner's uncle to take her away, he refused

and therefore, the respondent along with another dropped the

petitioner at her parents' house. The children of the petitioner

are living with the respondent and he is taking care of their

maintenance and education. With respect to back pain, it is

argued that except for filing of a prescription, there is no proper ::8::

proof about the back pain of the petitioner. It is alleged that the

respondent along with her uncle who is a police officer is

influencing the police and making attempt to kidnap the

respondent's children. In that context, when the children were

with the respondent's sister in an apartment complex, the police

from Miryalaguda and Borabanda have made attempt to kidnap

them. To prove said attempt, the respondent has produced a

soft copy of the petitioner entering into an apartment complex.

9. The learned counsel for respondent relied upon the

judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of

Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya 2, wherein, a reference is

made to the case of Sujata v. Abishek Kulhare 3, about

convenience and distance alone not being a criteria for showing

leniency in favour of the applicant wife. Further, in the case of

Pooja Sharma v. Rakesh 4, it is held that the husband can pay

the travelling and lodging expenses for the applicant and one

accompanying person when she is required to travel from

Ratlam to Indoor. On the basis of said cases, the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh had disposed of the petition seeking transfer

2026 SCC OnLine MP 1352

2019 SCC Online MP 6795

2019 SCC Online MP 5182 ::9::

with a direction to examine the wife through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for respondent argued that the petitioner's

case does not deserve consideration as she is unwilling to lead a

peaceful life with the respondent and his family members.

Further, it is contented that the reasons cited for transfer are

not tenable, as such, sought dismissal of the Transfer CMP.

10. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner herein is

attempting to exert pressure on the respondent by using police

influence. In that context, the respondent had filed

W.P.No.31275 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.13722 of 2024. The very

fact that the respondent is compelled to approach this court to

seek protection from the excessive interference from the police

shows that there is reasonable apprehension to the respondent

about being subjected to difficulties and inconvenience by the

local police of Nalgonda District. The police entering the

apartment complex of the respondent's sister to enquire about

the children of the respondent who are staying with their aunt

is sufficient ground to conclude that the petitioner is not a

person who is a helpless dependent, incapable of travelling or

defending herself. In case, there is any problem with travelling

or any problem with respect to finances, the same can be ::10::

addressed by making a proper request before the concerned

Family Court. The petitioner can always utilize the modern

methods of communication for attending the proceedings

through video conferencing. In the circumstances stated by the

respondent, given the evidence produced, this Court sees that

distance alone cannot be a ground for transfer.

11. Further, the petitioner, in case is suffering with back

pain, she can, as already discussed, may attend the proceedings

through video conferencing or seek to dispense her presence

before the Family Court when her presence is not necessary.

Further, the evidence can be always recorded through Video

Conferencing or through an Advocate Commissioner. In view of

the facilities available for defending the FCOP, this Court does

not see any favourable grounds to transfer. As such, the

Transfer CMP is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, 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 Dt. 06.04.2026 gvl