A transfer petition for matrimonial proceedings will be denied if the petitioner's actual residence is closer to the existing court than the requested court, and if health or childcare grounds are not sufficiently proven to outweigh the geographical convenience.

ORDER:

Heard Sri G. Sumanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Samatha Karnala, 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 H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Siddipet District, to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Kamareddy District.

3. The transfer petition contains averments relating to the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband ever since their marriage on 30.10.2020 till the filing of the H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2025. Said averments are not recounted herein as the same are not relevant for disposal of the present petition. The grounds cited for transfer are distance of 80kms from Kamareddy to Siddipet, having to take care of three year old minor son of the petitioner and respondent and personal ill-health of having suffered from paralytic attack. The petitioner claims that she was admitted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and underwent treatment for three days and was later admitted into TX Hospital, Hyderabad, where doctors diagnosed her condition as somatization disorder caused by mental and physical stress. The petitioner cannot do long distance travel as the same is likely to cause mental stress and physical difficulty. The petitioner filed DVC No.43 of 2025 before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy. She pleaded that she is suffering from health issues and has to take care of minor child and therefore, sought transfer. In this regard, she filed her medical record from 26.11.2023 to 12.07.2025 and electricity bill of her parents to prove that her parents are residing at Kamareddy.

4. Respondent opposed transfer denying the allegations made as to the incidents that transpired between the couple prior to filing of the H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2025. According to respondent, the petitioner conceived in March, 2021 then she went to her parents’ home and did not return to matrimonial home till 9th month. Thereafter, she went to Pothugal village at Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. After five months of delivery she came to matrimonial home for 20 days and again went to her parents’ house. The petitioner did not suffer with any paralytic attack, she suffered with left hand pain and left side chest pain and was diagnosed with L2-L3 mild disc bulge and her condition is stable. The claim of the petitioner suffering with somatization is denied. It is pleaded that the petitioner always quarrels for small issues and she has hyper anxiety. The petitioner left the matrimonial house and efforts made to bring her back to matrimonial house ended in failure. In the guise of compromise talks panchayats were held between the families of the petitioner and respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2025 seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent claims that the petitioner is not living at Kamareddy and she is residing at Pothugal village, which is at a distance of 27kms from Siddipet compared to Kamareddy Court, which is at a distance of 80kms. According to respondent, the petitioner is taking advantage of her parents’ having a house at Kamareddy by making him travel to long distances. To prove the residence of the petitioner at Pothugal, a copy of aadhar card of the petitioner is produced, which shows her residence a