Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

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