Allowed

Somepalli Sudeepa@ Jampani Sudeepa Chowdary v. Somepalli Bhargav Chowdary

Telangana HC5 Feb 2026TRCMP/304/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a matrimonial case file from the Senior Civil Judge at Mulugu to the Family Court at Kukatpally. The Court prioritized the convenience of the wife, who works in Hyderabad, over the respondent's claim regarding witness residence at Mulugu.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.20 of 2025 from Senior Civil Judge at Mulugu to Family Court Judge at Kukatpally; closure of miscellaneous petitions.

Somepalli Sudeepa@ Jampani Sudeepa Chowdary Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{RENUKA YARA}

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL M ISC.PETITION^{NO: 304OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Somepalli Sudeepa@ Jampani^{Sudeepa Chowdary,W/o.Somepalli Bhargav} Chowdary, D/o. Jampani^{Venkateshwarlu,Aged about 34 years, Occ} Software Employee in TCS,^{Presently residing at Lasya Ladies Hostei,LIG} 56, Dharmareddy Colony,^{Phase-1, KPHB, Kukatpally,H yde rabad-500072'} Native of H.No.5-65, Boddu^{Rayi Raod, Degaramudi, Prakasam.Andhra} Pradesh-523301

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Somepalli Bhargav Chowdary,^{S/o. RamakoteshwarRao, Aged about 30} years, Occ. Private Employee,^R/o.H.No -2-2718,^{N,4uthyalamma Street'} fi/angapet Village and Mandal,^{{/ulugu District, Telangana State-506172}

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of the c^{P.c. Praying that in the circumstances} stated rn the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be pleasedto pass} orders to transfer the case in^{H.M.O.P.No.200f 20250n the file of the court of} Senior Civil Judge at Mulugu^{to the Famrly CourtJudgeat Kukatpally}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶15

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petrtion, the High court maybe pleased to} pass orders to stay all further proceedings in o.P.No.20^{of 2025 on the file of the} court of Honourable senior civil^{Judge at tt/lulugu, pendingdisposal of main} Tr.C.IVI.P.

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Betwee n:

¶18

Sonrepalli Bharltav Chowdary, S/o Rarnakoteshwar Rao, Aged about³² years Occ Private Employee, Rio H No 2 27lB ltiluthyalamma Street. I,4anqapet Vrllage ano A/landal, IVlulugu Dtstrtct Telanqarta State 506172

¶19

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶20

AND

¶21

Sonrepal r Sudeepa@ Jampani Sudeepa Chowdary, W/o. Somepallr Bhargav Chowdary, D/o Jampani Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Software Empioyee in TCS, Presently restdtng at Lasya Ladtes Hostel^LIG 56, Dharmareddy Colony, Phase-|. KPHB, Kukatpally, Hyderaba d-500072. Nat vc of H No565 Boddu Rayi Raod, Degaramudr, Prakasatn, Andhra Pradesh-523301

¶22

,..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶23

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavrt filed rn sLrpport of the petitton, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the rntenrr order dt 05.08.2025 passed in Tr.C.lV P No 304 of 2025

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Regalla Santosh Kumar Reddy

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri B. Ravi Kumar

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA^YARA

¶29

Tr.C.M.P.No.3O4 of 2025

¶30

DATE:O5-O2-2026

¶31

Between

¶32

Somepalli Sudeepa^(ri; Jampani^{SudeepaChorvdan}

¶33

. - Petitioner

¶34

AND

¶35

Somepalli Bhargav Chowdary

¶36

Re spondent

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Heard Sri Regalla Santosh Kumar Reddy,^learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Boddu Ravi^Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶39

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is^filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,^{1908, by} the petitioner-wife to transler H.M.O.P.No.2O oi 2025^on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mulugu, to^the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at Kukatpally.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 18.08.202 1 at Boppudi Village, Chilakaluripet and

¶41

RY,J TRCMP,304_2025

¶42

¶43

thereafter, disputcs arose between them and that the petitioner liled a petition for restitution of conjugal rights ar-rd the same is pending on the lile of the I^Additional Familr' ClourL at Iiukatpallv. Learned counsel further sr-rbmitted that the respondent filed the said H.M.O.P^on thc filc oi the Scnior Civil Judge at Mulugu^seeking dissolution of marriage.

¶44

L Learrred counsel further submitted that the^petitioner is s'orking in TCS-Deccan Park, Madhapur ar-rd^residingin ar ladies Hostel, t,lG 56, Dharmareddy Colony,^Phase-1, lil)HB Colony, I(ukatpall-v, Hyderabad and tl-rat^the 1n respondenL is also u,orking in Iv-y Comptech,^located N4eenakshi Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad I-earned counsel lurther submitted that the^distance bct'"veen Kukatpalll' ald Mulugu is about^{1 8O kilom eters,} l;eing a soltrvare cmployee, travelling long distalce^would cause inconvenience to her and that transportation^and accommodation facilities are a-lso^poor in the^agencyarea like Mulugu.

¶45

The respondent filed counter affidavit denying^the allegation s made by the petitioner claiming that as^the

¶46

RY,J TRCMP 3O4 2025

¶47

¶48

1S matrimonial home is at Mulugu, and therefore, H.M.O.P filed in the said jurisdiction. Further, it is pleaded that proper arrangements for travel and accommodation may be made without having to seek transfer. The grounds cited by the petitioner for transfer are based on misapprehension, gaining sympathy and residence of the u,itnesses at Mulugu. While admitting that he is w'orking at Hyderabad, the respondent opposed the transler

¶49

In transfer petitions involving matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wile has to be given priority by taking into consideration her linancial and social status. In the instant case, both the parties are working in the jurisdiction of Family Court, MedchalMalkajgiri. The said fact is also admitted by the respondent. The only ground cited for adjudication of the H.M.O.P is that Mulugu is the matrimonial house of the parties and that the witnesses to be examined being residents in Mulugu. The residence of witnesses is not a ground for transfer. Further, since both the parties are residing in the jurisdiction of the Court at Medchal I,Ialkajgiri District, the proceedings initiated for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage can be

¶50

RY,J TRCMP 3O4 2025

¶51

¶52

prosecutecl before the same Court. There are no grounds to oppose the transfer.

¶53

[n vieu' o1- the loregoing discussion, the relief sought lbr bv the pctitroner is granted

¶54

B. In the rcsr-rlt, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allor.r,ed br, transferring H.M.O.P.No.2O of 2025 on the filc ol Lhe learned Senior Civil Judge at Mulugu, to the file of the learncd Judge, Famill, Court at Kukatpalty. The Llourt concernccl is herebv directed to transmit the entire casc lile rclating to IJ.M.O.P.No.2O <>f 2025, after dull' inclexed, u itl-rin a pcriod ol one month from the date of rcceipt of a co py of this order, under intimation to the other side. No crrsts

¶55

Miscellancous petitions, if a11,, pending in this

¶56

pctition, shall stand closed

¶57

SD/. A.SREENIVASA^REDDY TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 TheSenior Civil Judge at It'4ulugu

¶62

2 The Family^{CoLrtl Judge at Kukatpally}

¶63

One^{CC to Sri RegallaSantoshKunrar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶64

One^{CC to Sri B Ravt KumarAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶65

Two^{CD CoPies} 'o51.^(t-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510212026

ORDER

TRCMP.No.304 of 2025

j
,i
. TtiE s T4
( O
C)
c.)
2 3 urq ilzn

o17:.gtrO

¶71

ALLOWING THE TR.CMP

¶72

,a.oftA rV*d+t

Somepalli Sudeepa@ Jampani Sudeepa Chowdary v. Somepalli Bhargav Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somepalli Sudeepa@ Jampani Sudeepa Chowdary v. Somepalli Bhargav Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bodige Sravya Vs Bodige Kiran Kumar

Dasari Suprathik Vs The State of Telangana

Gunda Gajula Anusha Vs Gunda Srinivas

Thoutu Nagarani Vs Gouraboina Venkatesh

Kottala Ashok, Vs Maisa Bheemavva @ Bheema Bhai

Smt. Jukanti Srija Vs Jukanti Sudhir Kumar