the petrtion€ that she cannot travel such a str,:rt listance for attending th( letition filed by the. respondent, t[:,pe,]rs to be a strange c3se !;he has already filed number. o€ cl:;es against the respondent a rc his family members and made tf e rer;pondent to attend tho CL uts at Ranga Reddy and Hayathna,J.rr. In fact the presence r)f t e petitioner herein before the Famll,T CoLrrt may not be requirr:d rn all the dates of hearing, a.ld sl-o m,ty have to attend the Family Court once or t/vice l.o face the cross-exa rr ni ti,ln of respondent herein. The pet l.ijn appears to have beer- fil d by the petitioner only to satisfy - er ego rather than with it gt n tine request_ If the request ls for trinsfer of case from a lonqer Jiritance it could have been consider<:rl by taking the other circLrms ances into consideration. When trr.: o:her Court before whir:h t t€, respondent filed divorce petition :; ve -y close to L.B.Nagar ,lnd u,hen the evidence of respondent i; already over, there is rro nrlaning in seeking transFer of ftr,:: (,ase from Secunderab,ad o L.B.Nagar. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed
