Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16103

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Smt. Pulli Megha – Appellant
Versus
Sri. B. Bharani Vamshi Goud – Respondent
TR. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.323 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Shiva Ram Sharma
For the Respondents: E. Srinivas Reddy

In matrimonial transfer petitions, the general rule of prioritizing the wife's convenience may be denied if the wife is a professionally independent individual capable of traveling or using video conferencing, and if safety concerns are not supported by credible evidence.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the transfer of F.C.O.P.No.83 of 2025 from the Senior Civil Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, to the Principal Family Court at Kukatpally. The petitioner cited the distance of 80kms, the need to care for her diabetic father suffering from sciatica, and perceived threats to her safety as grounds for transfer. The court found that the petitioner is a doctor, financially independent, and capable of managing her own travel or utilizing alternative legal means. The primary issue was whether the general principle of prioritizing the wife's convenience in matrimonial disputes applies to a petitioner who is a professionally independent woman. The court reasoned that while convenience is a factor, it must be viewed through the lens of the individual's circumstances, noting that an independent professional is not in the same position as a dependent spouse. The court further observed that video conferencing and advocate commissioners are available alternatives, and the claim of threat was unsubstantiated by evidence. In the result, the Tr.C.M.P. is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petition seeks transfer of a matrimonial case based on inconvenience and safety concerns (!) (!) . - The petitioner is a doctor and financially independent, unlike the dependent petitioner in a related case (!) . - The court notes that video conferencing or recorded evidence is available to avoid physical court attendance (!) . - The threat claim lacks substantiated evidence, and the respondent being a doctor cannot be presumed to pose a threat (!) . - The case is dismissed as the transfer petition is not justified under the circumstances (!) (!) .

What is the basis for dismissing the transfer petition in a matrimonial dispute?

How should the convenience of the wife be considered in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes?

What evidentiary standard applies to claims of threat or safety concerns in transfer petitions?

Table of Content
1. request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings based on personal hardship and safety concerns. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. professional independence and financial stability of the wife can outweigh the general rule of convenience in transfer petitions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. availability of video conferencing and lack of substantiated threat evidence justify denying transfer. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. dismissal of transfer petition due to lack of merit based on the petitioner's independence. (Para 11 , 12)

ORDER:

Heard Sri B. Shiva Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Tr.C.M.P. is filed under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.83 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, to the file of the learned Judge, Principal Family Court at Kukatpally.

3. The petitioner-wife got married to respondent-husband on 08.03.2018 at Sonyz Garden, Nizampet Road, Miyapur, Hyderabad. Thereafter, on account of differences the petitioner registered FIR No.352/2025 dated 09.07.2025 for the offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner is resident of Kukatpally living with her father. She has three sisters, two living in America and other living at her in-laws house in Hyderabad. The petitioner is taking care of her diabetic father, who is also suffering with sciatica pain. She cannot leave her father for very long time to attend Court at Yadadri Bhongir District, which are about 80kms from her residence. Hence, she filed the present petition to transfer the said F.C.O.P. to the Courts at Kukatpally, which are at a distance of 8kms from her residence. Therefore, she prays this Court to consider the inconvenience of travelling and logistics of looking after her father in transferring the F.C.O.P. Lastly, the petitioner also apprehends threat to her safety from the respondent for attending Court at Yadadri Bhongir District.

4. The respondent filed counter opposing transfer denying all the grounds cited for transfer with respect to distance, responsibility of the petitioner in taking care of her father and the threat perception of the petitioner in attending the Courts at Yadadri Bhongir District.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration in transferring petitions involving matrimonial disputes. Further, reference is made to the order of this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.324 of 2025 dated 06.01.2026, wherein it is held that all the connected cases are pending at Family Courts at Hyderabad and therefore, the F.C.O.P. therein pending before Family Court, Hanumakonda District was also ordered to be tried by the Integrated Family Courts at Hyderabad.

6. While considering the transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes the facts of each case are to be taken into consideration for granting relief. A wife, who is dependent on her husband for maintenance, a wife, who is incapable of travelling long distances or a wife having children or a wife, who is constrained due to social status or educational backwardness are considered from a different lens as compared to women, who are independent, educated and are well versed with worldly affairs.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner is a doctor, who can earn her own livelihood and is independent in taking decisions and is not constrained by social and financial limitations. The transfer petition filed by a person in such a fact situation is not comparable to the fact situation of the petitioner-wife in Tr.C.M.P.No.324 of 2025, where she is dependent and was not capable of traveling alone.

8. Further, the petitioner herein is capable of availing video conferencing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document