Allowed

Cheruku. Mounika, v. Maragouni. Aditya

Telangana HC3 Feb 2026TRCMP/354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking transfer of a dissolution of marriage petition from Family Court, Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District to Family Court, Nalgonda. The transfer was granted to ensure convenience for the pending DVC and M.C. cases in Nalgonda.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P. No. 360 of 2025 from Family Court, Kushaiguda to Family Court, Nalgonda.

Cheruku. Mounika, Vs Maragouni. Aditya — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

134421

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 3s4 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Cheruku. M_ounika, Wo lt/aragouni. Aditya, D/o Cheruku Shekar Aged about 31 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No..1-21, Gundrampally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

lvlaragouni. Aditya, S/o Maragouni. Om prakash, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.32l1/649, Sai Ram Nagar, Dammaiguda, Medchal tvlalkajgiri District

¶12

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the OP No.360 of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, at Kushaiguda, MedchalIr4alkajgiri District to Family Court, Nalgonda in the interest of^justice-

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. MANJU DANTURI

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TE] ANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶19

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE RENUKAYA]T \

¶20

TR.C.M.P.No.354 of 2O25

3m FEBRUARY, 2026

Bctwccn:

Cheruku N4ounika

Petitioner

AND

Maragouni Adih'a

Rcspondent

ORDER:

Hcard Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned ounsel for the petitl()ncr and N{s.N{anju Danturi, lcarned counsel for th respondent

¶30

'fhis 'I'ransfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is flrlcc ;y thc pctitioner seeking transfer o[ O.Ir.No.360 of 2025 pending on the [rle ol the Iearned .Judge, Family Court, Kushaiguda, Medchal-Mall ajgti District, to the Frle of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda

¶31

Lcarned counsel for the petitioner contended ] Lat the marriage between the petruoner and the respondent took place n 14.08.2020 as

¶32

¶33

¶34

per Hindu rites and customs and that due to disputcs, the respondent has filed the said O.P.No.360 of 2025 seekrng dissoluLion of marriage f,carned counsel further contcnded that the pctltioner has lodged a complaint against the respondent belore Mahila Police Srauon, Nalgonda ancl also filed M.C.No.10 r:f 2025 on [hc [rle of thc Principal .Judicial N{agrstrate of First Class at Nalgonda. I-earned counsel furthcr contended that travclling from her parents' house at (iundrampaily tcr I(ushaiguda 1S causing much inconvcmencc ro thc petitloner ancl therefore, sought ransfer of thc sard O.P

¶35

l,earned counsel for thc respondcnt opposcd thc transfcr on the ground that the couple last residcd ar Dammaiguda, Medchal {alkajgrr District and the respondent is a privare cmployee and if the Tr.C.M.P. is allowed, it would cause much incon','enience to hrm to trave I to Nalgonda on each date of hearing

¶36

Flaving considered the submrssions made by the learned counsei on either side, tl-ris Court is of the view that since DVC and M.C cases Lte pending at Nalgonda, keeping in vierv the convenience of rhe

¶37

petitioner, the relief sought for is gtanted.

¶38

I I

¶39

ii<EBEE !!BEr!7 ::!. j ': ' --r .f

¶40

¶41

Accotdingly, the^'I'ransfer Civil Miscellaneous I), tition is allorved bv translerring O.1'].No.360 of 2025 pending on the^'r c of the icarncd Judge,^{Iramily Court, Kushaiguda,Medchal-Malkajgti , istrict, to the file} of thc lcamed -f udge, Famrly Court, Nalgonda. Thc Cc urt concerned is hcreby directed ro rransmir the enurc case file relaung t I O.P.No.360 of 2025, after duly indcxed, wirhin a period ol one monrlL from the date of receipt o[ a copv of this order, undcr inttmation to th ( othcr side. No costs,

¶42

Misccllaneor-rs Peutrons, il any, pending in t,r s petition, sha[1

¶43

stand closed

¶44

SD/. (.BHAVANI SWAMY SS ,I JTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To, \ 1 The Family Court, Kushaiguda,^{tt/edcha l-tt/alkaj$1rDistr i I} 2 The Judge, Family Court,^Nalgonda 3 One CC to Sri Janardhan^{Goud Sunkari, Advocate} [OPIJ^]l 4 One CC to Sri lvlanju Danturi, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

¶48

AI]K /P,<JL^.l

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310212026

ORDER

TRCMP.No.354 of 2025

-^-.=
z:
,l r- SL4 a
(.o$
.J
1 i l'llh 71l?fi
t tn
t *
I) ,ATC

¶55

ALLOWING THE TRCMP

¶56

Ito

Cheruku. Mounika, v. Maragouni. Aditya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheruku. Mounika, v. Maragouni. Aditya

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

Dr. v. Vasudeva Rao Vs Gotte Srinivas

Pedala @ Annaveni Jyothi Vs Pendala Bhaskar

Bolla @ MeruguMounika Vs Bolla Ramakrishna

Action Aid Association India, Vs Gummadavelly Rajashekar

The Superintending Engineer Operation Vs Sri. Anil Kumar

Sk Electrical Engineers Vs State of Telangana