Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     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    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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

Similar News