No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: 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