SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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