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, (2008) 11 SCC 768, wherein it was held that when wife is having two minor daughters and she was pregnant and there is no male member to accompany

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, AIR 2002 SC 396, 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, Tr CMP No.20 of 2021,dt 23.02.2022, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangeeta Alias Shreya vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya, 2004 13 SCC 407, 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

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