SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11050

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Dr. Vulese Sharanya – Appellant
Versus
Putta Naresh Reddy – Respondent
TRCMP 418/2025



##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

TR.C.M.P.No.418 of 2025

DATE: 04.02.2026

Between:

Dr. Vulese Sai Sharanya

… Petitioner

AND

Putta Naresh Reddy

…Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Someshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Kongara Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking transfer of G.W.O.P.No.23 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,

to the file of the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner

and respondent took place on 20.07.2016 as per Hindu rights and customs

and they were blessed with a boy viz., Arnav Shourya. Thereafter, disputes

##PAGE2##

2

arose between them and hence, the respondent has filed FCOP No.1335 of

2021 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution

vide

of marriage by way of mutual consent and the same was allowed order

dated 20.04.2023. Subsequently, the respondent has filed G.W.O.P.No.23 of

2025 under Sections 7, 10 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with

Section 7 of Family Court Act ( for short the Act) seeking custody of the

minor Arnav Shourya and the said GWOP is pending on the file of the

learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kukatpally. Hence, the

petitioner-wife sought transfer of the said GWOP.

4. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit opposing transfer of the said

GWOP.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that earlier the

petitioner practicised at Adikmet and thereafter, she has shifted her residence

from Adikmet and now, she is pracitising at Sigma Hospitals, Madhapur. The

child viz., Arnav Shourya is studying at EuroKids Pre School, Khajaguda,

Ranga Reddy District. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent

is also practicising as a Dermatologist at Nallagandla. To sum up, it is stated

that both the petitioner and respondent are residing and practicising at

Madhapur and Nallagandla, which fall with the jurisdiction of VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Kukatpally.

##PAGE3##

3

6. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit dated 02.02.2026 stating

that she is residing at H.No.1-9-277/18, near Ramanagar gundu, Adikmet,

Hyderabad. Further, it is stated that in the cause title of the present Tr.CMP,

the address of the petitioner is mentioned as Flat No.B2-911, Niharika

Exotica, Lanco Hills Road, Khajaguda, which is her in-laws address and that

the said address is also mentioned in the cause title of GWOP filed by the

respondent. But, actually, the petitioner is residing at H.No.1-9-277/18, near

Ramanagar gundu, Adikmet, Hyderabad. In proof of the said address at

Adikmet, the petitioner has furnished copies of her Aadhar card, Voter Card,

Driving License, Passport and details of Fixed line and Airtel WIFI service

bills.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Aadhar card of

the minor should be produced before this Court to ascertain the place of

residence of the minor.

8. Having regard to the above set of facts stated by the petitioner as well

as respondent, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner is that she copied the

cause title of GWOP in the Tr.CMP and the cause title shows her address at

Lanco Hills, Khajaguda, which is her in-laws house.

##PAGE4##

4

9. Coming to the case of the respondent, as stated in the counter, the first

claim is that petitioner is residing at Lanco Hills, Khajaguda, which is disputed

by the petitioner.

10. The second claim is that the child is studying at EuroKids Pre School,

Khajaguda. The location of the school, where a minor is studying, does not

determine the jurisdiction; rather under Section 9 of the Act, residence of the

minor determines the jurisdiction.

11. The third claim is that the petitioner and the respondent are working in

Nallagandla, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top