Allowed

Munshad Baig v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025CRLP/15637/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana transferred a petition for restitution of conjugal rights from Kamareddy to Armoor. The petitioner, fearing harassment and needing childcare assistance, sought transfer. The court allowed the petition, prioritizing the wife's convenience and safety over the husband's, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P. No. 16 of 2025 filed by the respondent at Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court at Armoor, Nizamabad District.

Munshad Baig Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³³⁸³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJRI:hTE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

Li,'J.','6Jblf, E'ift B,#I,?.:ff 0I

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

Tr.C. M.P.No: 93 of 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Gudla @ Muda pranur years, occupation. pr;ru1uthf,'^{W^o Gudla} Rakesh, Dr tr:Hi:xitJ;il".::,i:{,.3ffi:.I'fi JAil;"'i;i^j:,il#

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

; #;?iii:;ii;,5,.{i#^{rx,1f, :,ffi;.r,"oi:H;,,::} 8 "Private Service, makodna Village andR/o.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

t"lil31r,Tj;iffi:":J 24 or the c P c Pravi '"o present transfer petition o,,tl:::"n'i;"-n'ni i",iI'l,nr;';:'; i::."J,.iJT,",:ilffi: jn g:ilx; J %ffi'tr s:tffi il k : :.*i:h?,#*r J,1[{j1

¶14

IA NO: 10F 2025

¶15

Petition under sectionJ5l cpc praying that in the circumstances sraled rn :J:,{ffi #i:".r #f y *, ;i3;;***ru r r n.,,idf,ril$ ik l

¶16

IA NO: 20F 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 15'1 .cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in suonort of the p.iti"ii, it,. iiigh court may be preased to extend tnterim Stav orcter, ort.o bs_db:;bis p"i".o in t.A.No 1 of 2O2S n TRcMp No 93 of 2025, tirr tt " ji"porri "t^{,t," ,"ilTncr,rr"}

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Subramanyam p.V.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE^{SRt JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALI'SHETTY} f Tr.C^{.M.P.No.93o2025}

¶22

OR^DER:

¶23

Petil.ion^{isf iled} This^{'l'rran sfer Civil Miscellaneous} seeking^{trarrsl:-of H'M'O'P'No 16 of 2025 from the:ile of} Court^{of St:n i lrCivil Judge, KamareddY torhe Cortlt of} SeniorCi.lil.-IrLrlgeatArmoorofNizamabadDistricL.

¶24

Hearc,,^{llri R' Nagarjuna Reddy'iearnedc()unr';€lfor} the Petittor^{Lerand Sri SubramanYamP.V., ie:Lrnedc xtnsel} for the^{re sl rcx.Ldent'}

¶25

Brief^{facts of the case in nutshell are l.hat pe1 ilioner} and^{respo:<1lnt are wife and husband and theirrn arriage} was^{pe r'ol'm :d on 13 1 l'2016 at Armoor' Prltitirlnel ' oined} thematrirno:ialhouseoftherespondenta'ftcruedk,ckand they b1t:sr;erl^{rvith two children who are nou' ege< [ about} eight 1'6⁴¹ "^{rrnd four years;that respondentan<l hir; family} members^{lrirrassedthe petitioner physicall'rand rr:ntally} ar-rd abrse<]^{in filthy language and that she rr-as plr1,sically} assaultec.^{and there was threat to her Iife anC tlrr:refore'} she lert the^{matrimonial houseand preser tly'she is} stafing^{v,il-it her parents house at Armoor'Pe -itio rer also}

¶26

¶27

LNA, J TrCMP No 93 of2125

¶28

contended that she lodged a compraint uide crimeNo.495 of 2O2S before the police Station_Armoor and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, respondent filed H.M.O.p.No.16 of 2O2S on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further averred that the distance between Kamareddy and Armoor is 75 kilometers and petitioner has to take care of her minor children and in view of the threat by the respondent and his family members, she cannot travel alone and she has to take assistance of her old aged mother. Therefore, it is difficult for her to travel every date of hearing in H.M.o.p.No.16 of 2025 and thus filed this petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is working as Aaya in a private organization and she has to maintain herself ald her two minor children and in view of threat to her life, she cannot travel a_rone and she has to take assistance of her mother on every date of hearing and it would result in financial burden on her.

¶30

l-.! ,^I T{MP^)91ql.}A:t

¶31

¶32

On^{1-h': other hand' learned counsel lbrthe} respondent^{',rott'lcl submit that distance betwer:n L'ollh 1.he} places is^{i'0il lometers and except498-A case rto ( tller} Learned^{counsel forLhe} case is Pr:ndlllg^inArmoor' responden-^{1ur.-hercontended that the respondent is reldy} to bear^{exl)ersesoftravel and otherexpe'nses tlbe} incurred^{olthe petitionerfor attending everydar-e of} hearing^{antl inally, submitted that Transfer (l M I) is} devoid^{of tnr:rits and is liable to be dismissed'}

¶33

The un'lerlying^{principlegoverningthe ap1;licz'Ltions} filed for^{tt a'r rsf er of cases under Sectio n 24 of OPC is i rrleed} well settl:d^{l:r" the Hon'ble Apex Court as wc'll a s vi tt ious} High Court:;^{itt catena of decisions'}

¶34

The ilorr-ble^{Sr-.rpremeCourt inNCV AishwarltctVs} A,S.Saro.aanq^{KarthikShcr held as follows:}

¶35

"9. Tlut <'ardtnal^pincipte for^{exercise of ptnt'et tstder} Secticn 1"1 of^{the Code of Ciuil Procedureis that tlte ends} of^j tslic:t' should^{demand the transferof the sr'it'a pr:eal} or otlrcr proceeding.^{Inmatimonialmotters,tt)hl''reuer}

¶36

| 2022 SCC Chlile Sic 1199

l l

f,CMp.N..9J ,/:l!;,

¶41

Courts are called upon the plea of transfer, the Courts haue b hke':-:' consideration the soundness of both ,n'n'o spouses and their u.nn,T!_n), the sociar ";":::;:;: ':::;":::;l;f f;i:::;:;,"!:;:"::::,1 liuelihood parties tn eking out their "ro^{,r*" *rthe} protectiue umbrella tleg are seeking tn o "r"t.nof,ntose Giuen the preua ing socioeconomic parad.igm ,, ,o'o'-'f" the wtfe's ..r;:r:,;;';":e Indian societs' seneratts, tt is t'thich must be looked at while considering transfer.,,

¶42

8' The principle of law laid dow n by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in JVCi.V,Aishwqryq,s ccse (cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Co urt of Bombay in Deuiko Dhiraj patil Nee Deuika "Iagp^{rakas h} Buttep ati I a, Dhiral Sunil patip ,^and observed as under:_

¶43

"In a country like Ind.i such as mariage, orrol' ^u^{ant decisior^s} s.titt.taken uith the suid.ance "ro or""iii! famits. For a tada ,""::'"":::::::;'f" proceedings to a Court , ttte fate of her mariage is going to be fa^{mtt g} me m b e, ;, " r r- ;;::;:;" r: :::, ::, concem and canlse not onlg phgsical

¶44

'(zo?!^{SCC Online} Bom 1926)

¶45

l\i, "' 5 TrCMP^{\o.A3of )02;}

¶46

but olso^emotionaltnd in,:otttte^{n tence} ptycLut^{ogical inconuenience"'}

¶47

111 Ptlgonko g. FurttLer"^{l-re High Court of Bombay} Ro,hul^{Po.tilu.Rahul Ratindra Paf,il3 follorvedlhe} down^{inN,C'V'Aishwo:ryd'scase (':ited} principle^{la Ld} supra)^il111 'Qs')lka^{Dhltai Patil Nee Deuka'Iagprakash} Buttepatil's^{r: rrs e (cited supra)' and held as follorvr;:-}

¶48

"Tht^{trLderlgingpinciplegouemin'1the} prccee'c'ings^{und"er Section of the CPC' is t httt} conL'ett^{e'nce of the ruife is to be preferredouerth'e} cctttrc nktnce^{of the husband'"}

¶49

Thus,^{drere are catena of decisions oi th': Hor'ble} Supreme^{CourL and other HighCourts to the effe ct that in} matrimorriaLl^{matters/disputes, whileconsrde'rin1ithe} application^{for transfer of the proceedingsfrom 'lne Oourt} to anotht:r Court,^{the Courts mustprefer tho conver.tence} of the wile orrrr the convenience^{of the husband.}

¶50

1 1. Perus;al of the record discloses that^{Transfer C I\l.P is} riled rnainhr on the ground that there is threat to life of the petitioner etnc attempts were made to kill her, (2023 SCC On It ri,,not ,-tn _- B( m 1gB2)

¶51

¶52

4.,
LNA. J
TrCMP No.93 of2025 (r

¶53

disputed that petitioner has^{two minor children and she} has to take care of them and^{she is working as an Aaya in} a private organization^{and that she has to maintainherself} and her children.^{Though, learned counsel forthe} respondent represented that^{respondentis ready to bear} expenses of travelling^{and other expenses,in considered} opinion of this Court^{and taking into consideration that} petitioner has to maintain^{herselfand her two minor} children and considering^{the fact that the petitioner has to} take assistance on each^{and every date of hearing,this} Transfer C.M.P. is deserved^{to be allowed.}

¶54

Therefore, in the^{facts and circumstances of the case} and in the light of^{the principle laid down in the aforesaid} decisions, this Court^{is inclined to accede to the request of} the petitioner-wife^{seekingtransfer of the case.}

¶55

Accordingly, this^{Transfer C'M.P. isallowedand} H.M.O.P.No. 16 of 2025^{pendingon the file of the Courtof} Senior Civil Judge,^{Kamareddy, iswithdrawnand} transferred to the hle of the Court^{of Senior Civil Judgeat}

¶56

.V),f

¶57

¶58

l',t.1, J Tr(\lP i1 9-l ol 2(.25

¶59

¶60

Armoor of Niz amabad District, for disposal in ac cor:lirnce with law.

¶61

Thc L:ar ned Senior Civil Judge, Kama:redC1., s hall transmit the entire original record in H.M.(l.p.No. L(> of 2025 duli' incexed, to the Court of Senior C.vil Juog: at Armoor of Ni:zemabad District, preferabiy within a perrod of one month I'rc,tn the date of receipt of a copy of this orcier.

¶62

Pen,1inp1 miscellaneous applications, if arLv. s hall stand clos:cl.'There shali be no order as to cost,l.

¶63

SD/. M()I{D.^ISMAIL DEPIJTY REGISTRAR

¶64

//TRUE COPY// i

¶65

'usECTlt)l!^oFFlcER

¶66

To, 1. The Senior^{C:ivil Judge,Kamareddy} z. in" S"nio,^{C;rvil .ludge at Armoorof Nizamabad Distrrct} S. On" CC to^{Srl F. NagarJuna Reddy' AdvocateloPuCl} 4 One CC^{to Sri {i rbramanyamP V , Advocate [OPUC]}

¶67