Dismissed

M. Niharika v. Macharla Santosh

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025TRCMP/506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from Hyderabad to Bhupalpally citing inconvenience in attending court while caring for her child. The High Court dismissed the transfer petition since trial evidence was nearly complete and the husband undertook to pay travel costs and batta.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed without costs; respondent directed to pay batta to witnesses and travel charges to petitioner as decided by trial court.

M. Niharika Vs Macharla Santosh — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IiIONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEK. STJJANA}

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC. PETITIO^{N NO: 506 OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

IVI. Niharika, Wo Macharla^{Santosh,Aged about 25 y99rs-,. Oc.cPvt} .Employee R/o H.No.2-8'1, Peddapur^{Viltage, Venkatapura Mandal,Peddapur, Jaishankar} Bhupalapally District, Telangana^-506168.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Macharla Santosh, Sio^{t\tlacharla Sammaiah, Aged about 29-y99r!,} 9tt-, ^^. A&o"rt", nlo H.f{o.31,^{LIG-2, First Floor, B.K.-Guda, Near B K Guda Park, S'R'} Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500^038-

¶12

...ResPondent

¶13

Petition Under section^{24 of the c.P.c. Prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High court maybe pleased to withdraw} F.C.O.P.No.74B ot 2023^{on the file of Judge, I AdditionalFamilycourt, city civil} court at Hyderabad^{and transfer the sameto the court of DistrictJudge,} Bhupalpalh- District at^Bhupalpally.

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto stay} all further proceedings^{in F.c.o.P.No.748 of 2023 on the file of Judge, Family} Court, City Civil Court at^{Hyderabad, pendingdisposal of above Tr'C'MP'}

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the petition} .'19- Ih" Affidavit filed in support^{thereof and upon hearingthe argumentsof sri MoHD} SADIQ ALl, Advocaie^{for the Petitionerand Sri R S SRAVANKUtvlAR, Advocate for} the Respondent.

¶17

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶18

I.IIE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAI{A

¶19

TR.C.M.P.NO.506 0F 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This tr lnsfer pelition is filed by the petitioner seer<ing this Court tr, r rar s;fer F.C.O.P.No.748 of 2023 pend ng rn t te Iile of I-Additionrrl^trmily Court, CiS Civil Court at Hyderabr d to the Court ol f )ist^- ct Judge, Bhupalpally District at l3hupalpally.

¶22

Hr:aucl Sri Mohammed Sadiq Ali, learned coturscl for the petition()r a r: Sri R.S.Sravan Kumar, learned col nse for the respond:r t.

¶23

TL.c :,:rtr'.ention of learned counsel for the ltctiltont r is that the marrii,gc : f petitioner with the respondent was p,crfo rmed on 09.12.2021) rr Peddapur Vi11age, Bhupalapl y Manclal, Jaishanl<a - I ilrupalpally District. After the ma-ria11e p:titioner joined t -x rr s;pondent and both started their mrLrita I life at Hyderabaci a rC lived happily for some period. Tt,e p:titioner conceiveC rr, I during her 7h month pregnancy, her ftrt rcr took her with h Lnr lo their village for delivery. Since the.r. p:titioner observed :L'a stic change in the nature and atti; uclc 6f th6

¶24

¶25

¶26

respondent. The respondent without enquiring about the health condition of petitioner started demanding to transfer land admeasuring Ac.2.0O guntas in his favour which was accepted by the father of petitioner. Further, the .respondent also demanded the amount granted by the Government to the^newly married woman under Kalyana Lakshmi Scheme.^{The petitioner} gave birth to a maie child and the same was informed^{to the} respondent but the respondent and his^{parents came} to^the house of parents of petitioner after one month of birth of^the child.

¶27

Irarned counsel further submitted that^{petitionerlodged} a complaint against the respondent and his^parents in^Koyyrr Police Station for the offences under Sections^{29O,306, 341} r/w.Sections 511 and 34 of Indian^{Penal Code(for short 'IPC')} and FIR was registered vide FIR^{No.56 of 2O23.Further,dueto} unbearable harassment of respondent,^{petitionerhledcomplaint} vide FIR No.61 of 2023 for the offences^{under Sections 498-A of} IPC ald Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry^{ProhibitionAct, wherein} charge sheet was hled and the same^{was numberedas} C.C.No.1338 of 2023 pending on^{the file of Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar^{Bhupalpally.Petilioner}

¶28

¶29

:,#TV

¶30

also fi1ed D. r.C.No.24 of 2023 on the hle of F,rinc ipal .Judicial First C a.,.s I\4agistrate, Bhupalpally and M.().No 28 of 2023 praying t() F.t ant maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- pr)r rr ont,t and all the said c irs( s are pending at Bhupalpally. The respont lent fiied F.C.O.P Nr>. 11B of 2023 before the l-Additionzrl F-,rmily Court, City Civil Clc,t rr, Hyderabad for grant of decrc,: of div, rrce and petitiont:r 1lI rl counter denying the allegations ler elec against her. As ttr : petitioner is residing with her pat ents at Bhupalp,al lr,, s hc cannot attend the Court at HyCere bad , though learned c(,Lt tsel for the respondent contended that petttioner is in Hydet'altac. she never resided in Hyderabad. Ht,nce , prayed this Cotirt r c transfer F.C.O.P. No.748 of 2023 fro:n tl Le file of I-Addition;11 I'rLmily Court, City Civil Court at Hyde -abad to the Court of D s. i:t ,,ludge, Bhupalpally District.

¶31

Orr lh: olhcr hand, learned counsel for thc resroncient contendcd th L, petitioner is frequently changing her addcess. In D.V.C, anri hilz intenance cases, she has mentioned her address as rente I hrt;se w,hereas in the present case, shr mt ntioned that she is rr:;rdrng with her parents. Further, the clse s at the fag end; tL e 1 e,titioner's evidence is completed; Ilws 1 tc 3 were already exirrl;red; the evidence of Rw.4 was eschewr d atrd Rw.5

¶32

¶33

¶34

was partly examined. At this stage,^{no purposewouldbe served} if the matter is transferred to the^Court at Bhupalpally.^He further contended that when the contention^{of petitioner is that} she is unable to attend the Court,^{petition-er undertakesto} examine the witnesses on the same^{day and he also undertakes} to pay the travelling charges of the^{witnesses includingthe} petitioner herein. Once the evidence^{is completed the nextstage} is arguments and petitioner is^not at^{all requiredat that stage,} even if, petitioner wants to^{attend the Court,respondentwill pay} the travelling charges including^{her stay.As such,requested} the Court to dismiss this transfer^petition.

¶35

In this regard learned counsel^{for the respondent relied on} the judgment in Anindita^{Das Vs SrijitDasr} ,^{wherein in} paragraph Nos.3 and 4, the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court observed as}

¶36

under :

¶37

"3. Even otherwise, it^{mustbe seen that at one stagethis} Court was showing leniency^{to ladies.But since thenithas} been found that a large number^{of tralsfer petitionsare filed} by women taking advantage^{of the leniencyshown by this} Court. On aI average at^{least10 to 15 transfer petitionsare} on board of each court^{on each admission day. It is, therefore,}

¶38

I (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 197

{

:';a

\ I

c13ar' lrirt leniency of this Court is being misused bv the

¶44

4.'l'lris (ourt is now required to consider each petiticn or its mer I Ir this case the ground taken by the wif,: is hat she hzLs r srall chiid and that fhere is nobody to keep h:r clild Tlre c r ll, in this case, is six years old and tl err- iu-r: gran 1p,: 13n15 available to look after the child. Th,: resoorld:nt is uilLir 1; to pay all expenses for travel and stal, of Lhe petit orr:r and her companion for every visit $lren Lhe petil,on,J is required to attend the court at Delhi. Tlrus, _hc gr'rurrri hat the petitioner has no source o. in(ome rs adec, ri: t -'J met."

¶45

Cr>n sr:Jsring the submissions made by both the counsel and thc nral( I ial on record, this transfer petition is lller I stating that pet,ti:xtr r is residing along with her parents at ped,lapur of Bhupalpal 11. t)istrict and she is taking care ol he r tl ree and half-year rrlt:l ::hild, as such, she cannot atterrd the (lourt at Hyderabarl . l'he further contention of pel irioner is that responder.l : attending the Court in the matte rs l,ertz ining to DVC, M(l rtr I Section 498-A IpC cases filed b.,. rh: pe titioner. Therefor,r, il the F.C.O.p., is transferred to l)hu raLpelly, no prejudict: ,r 1 be caused to the respondent anc i t rvi11 be convenient 1ir^- rhc petitioner also. However, ttre rt.corr t shows that in F'Clr, trial is aiready commenced and the evioence of petitioner is rircady completed. On behalf of restr)onc ent ten

witnesses were^{cited, Rws.1 to 3 were examined,the evidenceof} Rw.4 was eschewed^{and Rw.5was partly examined However'} the respondent^{undertakesto examine all the witnesses on the} same day and^{he is also ready to pay Batta for the witnesses} and also willing^{to pay travelling charges for the petitioner'} Further the case^{is at the fag end and exceptthe ground of} inconvenience^{there are no other grounds to allow this petition'} Hence, the transfer^{petition is Iiable to be dismissed'}

¶50

Accordingly,^{the Transfer Civil MiscellaneousPetitionis} dismissed.^{However, the respondent is directedto pay battato} the witnesses^{and alsothe chargesas decidedby the trial Court} to the petitioner^{herein on the date of her appearance'No costs'}

¶51

Miscellaneous^{applications,ifany pending' shall stand}

¶52

closed.

¶53

SD/. T.TIRUMALA^DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,