IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITOIN NO.202 of 2025

15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Dr. Chinthakrinda Mounika

…Petitioner

and

Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar

…Respondent

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Miryala Naresh Kumar – respondent/Party-

in-person. Perused the record.

2. The Tr.C.M.P is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of G.W.O.P No.11 of 2024 from the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Huzurnagar to the

file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The background facts leading to the filing of the Tr.C.M.P are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, married on 27.06.2019 at Karmanghat, L.B.Nagar as per Hindu

rites and customs. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, due to harassment and other problems, there were disputes. While things stood thus, the petitioner conceived and gave birth to a child on 24.08.2021. Thereafter, due to disputes, the respondent filed O.P.No.169 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and said matter was transferred from Huzurnagar vide orders of this Court in Tr.C.M.P No.102 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024 to the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P No.374 of 2024 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner also filed Domestic Violence Case and the same is numbered as DVC No.53 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

4. The child of the petitioner is four (4) years old and is residing with her at Badangpet which is at a distance of 200 Kms. from Huzurnagar. Without the assistance of her father, the petitioner is unable to travel to Huzurnagar to attend the G.W.O.P. Therefore, Tr.C.M.P is filed seeking transfer of G.W.O.P from the file of the II Additional District Judge at Huzurnagar to the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

5. The respondent filed counter opposing the Tr.C.M.P denying all the factual allegations made by the petitioner about the respondent. Said allegations are not necessary for the disposal of the present Tr.C.M.P. Suffice it to say that the respondent has referred to the education of the petitioner at Ukraine while pursuing medicine and her job at Rayinigudem, which is at a distance of 165 Kms. from L.B.Nagar. It is contented that the petitioner is capable of pursuing her medicine in a different country and is capable of pursuing her career at Rayinigudem which are at a long distance from L.B.Nagar. Hence, there is no reason why she cannot travel to pursue the G.W.O.P at Huzurnagar. Reference is made to judgments in cases between Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Maikya Prasuna v. Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Ramana Murthy, 2019 (2) ALT 1, Usha George v. Koshy George, (2000) 10 SCC 95, Anindita Das v. Srijit Das3, Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma4 and Krishna

3 (2006) 9 SCC 197 4 (2005) 11 SCC 535

Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam5, wherein, it is held that the convenience of wife alone cannot be a ground for transfer. Further reference is made to the case between S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein, it is held that any person who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. There is also allegation made by the respondent that while his wife is pursuing her employment in Rayinigudem, his son is living with his wife’s sister at Bangalore. Further, it is alleged that on account of displacement, the child is suffering with ill health and psychological problems. In view of all these aforementioned grounds, the respondent prayed that the petition for transfer be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the versions presented by both the parties, this Court in a Tr.C.M.P involving a minor is guided by the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act. I