THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.74 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narra Ajay Reddy, 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.1736 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to the Judge, Family Court at Khammam.

3. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. Their marriage was performed on 23.05.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Khammam. After marriage there were disputes and the both of them got separated and the petitioner is residing with her parents in Khammam. While so, the respondent only to harass the petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.1736 of 2024 seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, which is at a distance of 220 kms from Khammam. The petitioner is a household lady dependent on her parents, who are not able to travel due to old age. Since both the families are residents of Khammam and criminal case filed by the petitioner under Sections 85, 351 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is also filed before W.P.S. Khammam, the present petition is filed seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1736 of 2024 to the Courts at Khammam.

4. The respondent opposed the transfer denying all the allegations made by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has left the matrimonial house without any cause and he has filed the F.C.O.P. to bring her to his conjugal society to lead the matrimonial life. As a counter blast, the petitioner has lodged FIR No.168 of 2024 with WPS Khammam after filing of the F.C.O.P. About the jurisdiction at the Ranga Reddy District, it is pleaded that the couple have lastly resided at L.B.Nagar, therefore, the said Court has jurisdiction. The respondent denied the petitioner’s claim of inability to travel to Khammam without aid of her parents, as she is aged about 30 years, hale and health without any medical ailments.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the distance between L.B.Nagar and Khammam is about 220 kms and therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel from Khammam to L.B.Nagar. Further, the respondent is contesting the criminal case in Khammam and therefore, the F.C.O.P. may also be adjudicated at Khammam.

6. In reply, learned counsel for respondent referred to the age of the petitioner as a young lady aged about 30 years with no medical ailments being fit to travel to L.B.Nagar. Further, it is emphasized that both the parties have last resided at L.B.Nagar and that a healthy person of 30 years age need not be accompanied by her parents. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has no children and therefore, it is not inconvenient for her to travel to L.B.Nagar. Therefore, opposed the transfer.

7. Having regard to rival contentions, irrespective of the fact that couple last resided in the jurisdiction of the L.B.Nagar Court, the fact to be considered is whether it is convenient for the petitioner to defend the F.C.O.P. at L.B.Nagar. As per catena of judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes convenience, social and financial status of the wife has to be considered.

8. In the instant case, the petitioner is a housewife with no source of income living with her parents. Irrespective of fact that she is young, travelling to L.B.Nagar to defend the F.C.O.P. involves financial expenses owing to long distances. Further, when seen from the point of convenience as well as financial constraints, it is seen that the petitioner is more vulnerable and therefore, her case has to be considered liberally. Except banking upon the fact that the couple have last resided in L.B.Nagar jurisdiction, t