##PAGE1##

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.273 of 2025

6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

Between:

Smt. P. Divya Aruna …Petitioner

and

Banda Lourdu Raju …Respondent

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Pola, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the record.

2. The Transfer CMP is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking withdrawal of O.P.No.6 of 2025 from the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Sanga Reddy and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Yadadri-

Bhuvanagiri District.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, having been married on 18.09.2015 as per Christian rites and customs at Kethapally,

::2::

Nalgonda District. The petitioner and the respondent have given birth to two male children on 26.07.2016 and 27.07.2018. Thereafter, there was harassment for additional dowry by the respondent, due to which the petitioner's parents have sold one acre and paid the cash to the respondent. In spite of such payment through cash, there was continued harassment by the respondent leading to filing of FIR No.12 of 2025 on 05.02.2025 under Section 85 of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The petitioner filed MC No.6 of 2025 before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir and the respondent filed OP No. 6 of 2025 under Section 10(1) of Indian Divorce Act seeking grant of divorce. The petitioner pleaded that the distance between Bhuvanagari District and Sanga Reddy District is 120 Kms. and she is not in a position to travel with two minor children and her health condition does not support such travel. The petitioner pleaded that she cannot undertake the long- distance journey to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Sanga Reddy to defend the case. It is pleaded that convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration in

matrimonial proceedings. Hence, sought transfer.

::3::

4. The respondent filed counter opposing transfer, claiming that the petitioner is educated, financially independent and capable of undertaking travel. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner is working as a teacher, drawing regular income and holds Master's Degree in science. The hardship pleaded is illusory and exaggerated. The respondent's case is that the petitioner left the matrimonial home and shifted her residence to Yadadri District. A party cannot be rewarded for self-induced inconvenience while seeking transfer. It is pleaded that the respondent has a senior citizen mother aged 80 years suffering from serious ailments including pelvic fracture and she needs continuous medical supervision, regular physiotherapy and personal care. In view of said condition, it is difficult for the respondent to travel to Nalgonda frequently. Further, it is pleaded that transfer of matrimonial proceedings is not automatic but has to be decided on the balance of convenience of both the parties. Reference is made to the judgments in the cases of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das1, Kalpana Deviprakash Thakur v. Deviprakash Thakur, 1996 (8) Supreme 113 and Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet

1 2006 (9) SCC 197

::4::

Singh3, to plead that the transfer is not automatic, but the

balance of convenience of the parties has to be considered.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner being a lady with two minor children cannot travel 120 Kms. one way from Nalgonda to Sanga Reddy to attend the proceedings in the FCOP. Further, it is argued that the respondent has harassed the petitioner and compelled her to leave the house and therefore, the case of the petitioner has to

be considered for transfer.

6. The learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the transfer, alleging that the petitioner of her own volition has left the matrimonial house and the condition of respondent's mother at 80 years of age