IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case

23 September 2024 8:23 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Telangana High Court, in Tr.C.M.P. No. 64 of 2024, dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings from the Senior Civil Judge Court in Nirmal to Hyderabad or R.R. District. The petitioner cited difficulties in traveling with her minor child from Hyderabad to Nirmal. Justice P. Sree Sudha found that both parties reside in Nirmal, and there was no significant travel inconvenience, given the provision of free bus fare for women in Telangana.

The case arose when the respondent/husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2023, before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nirmal. Concurrently, the petitioner/wife lodged a criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, accusing her husband and his family of dowry harassment. The petitioner requested a transfer of the divorce proceedings to Hyderabad or R.R. District, citing that she resides in Hyderabad with her 2½-year-old child and faced travel difficulties.

The respondent, however, contended that the petitioner was a resident of Nirmal and falsely claimed Hyderabad as her residence to lodge the dowry case under the jurisdiction of Hyderabad. He asserted that the divorce summons were sent to her Nirmal address, where she had been residing with her parents.

The main issue before the court was whether there was sufficient justification to transfer the divorce proceedings from Nirmal to Hyderabad based on the petitioner’s claim of travel inconvenience. The petitioner claimed that traveling between Nirmal and Hyderabad posed challenges, especially as she was caring for a young child and did not have assistance.

The respondent countered that the petitioner had falsely claimed to reside in Hyderabad and was indeed residing in Nirmal. The court examined the record, noting that the petitioner had received summons at her Nirmal address, which contradicted her claim of residing in Hyderabad. The court also observed that the petitioner had raised this transfer petition only after receiving summons for the divorce proceedings.

Justice P. Sree Sudha dismissed the transfer petition, stating that both parties reside in Nirmal and that the petitioner had not convincingly established significant travel hardship. The court acknowledged the state's provision of free bus fare for women passengers, which mitigated the claimed inconvenience of traveling between Nirmal and Hyderabad.

"In Telangana State, there is no bus fare for women passengers, as such it is not inconvenient for the petitioner. As both parties are residing at Nirmal, this Court finds no reason to transfer the petition from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nirmal to the Principal Family Court at Hyderabad or R.R. District." [Para 6]

The Telangana High Court found no merit in the wife’s petition to transfer the divorce proceedings to Hyderabad. With the petitioner residing in Nirmal and no substantial inconvenience in travel, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the divorce proceedings to continue in Nirmal.

 XXXX vs. XXXX

Latest Legal News