1. This Tr.C.M.P is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of FCOP No.765 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Hyderabad at Kalpataru Complex, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Sri B. Bhagath Sain, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s. Vankina Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

3. Petitioner-wife narrated the background facts leading to filing of CC No.567 of 2024 on the file of the JFCM, Atmakur, Wanaparthi District, MC No. 5 of 2025 on the file of JMFC, Mahaboobnagar, followed by the respondent-husband filing FCOP No.765 of 2025. The petitioner's case is that the respondent and his family members have harassed her for additional dowry and her parents are weak and could not meet the demands of the respondent and his family and the same led to matrimonial disputes. It is further case of petitioner that the respondent always lives at Bangalore for the purpose of his employment and demanded that the parents of the petitioner purchase a residential accommodation for him in Bangalore. In that context, disputes arose and the petitioner was finally necked out of the matrimonial house. The petitioner pleaded that she is living at Mahabubnagar with her parents, that she is unemployed and her father is suffering with Stage IV osteoarthritis and cannot accompany her to Hyderabad and therefore, she sought transfer of FCOP filed by her husband from Family Court at Hyderabad to the file of Family Court, Mahabubnagar.

4. The respondent opposed the transfer petition stating that the petitioner herein was never interested in leading marital life with him, that she was never interested in emotionally or otherwise developing a relationship for the purpose of leading marital life. Every attempt made by the respondent to develop marital bond was defeated by her subjecting the respondent to humiliation and distress. According to the respondent, the petitioner has strange behaviour of engaging in online conversations with other men, more particularly interested in a person by name Utkarsh, who was a cousin of the petitioner's friend by name Aastha. She engaged in strange behavior of leaving the office premise after office hours in case the petitioner was slightly late on account of traffic jam or any other reason. The respondent would search for the petitioner in distress while she left only to harass him mentally and emotionally. Several panchayats were dfheld to no avail. The parents of the petitioner have asked her to leave the job and focus on the marriage. However, the same also did not yield any result. Distressed with the behaviour of the petitioner, the respondent disassociated himself with his family and friends at Hyderabad and shifted to Bangalore.

5. The respondent claims that he is emotionally scarred and has no longer patience to make any further effort to continue to live with a petitioner who has never shown even an iota of inclination to engage in conjugal life with him. The respondent's case is that he has no trust in his wife, that she has filed false cases against his parents and himself on the false pretext of demand of additional dowry and harassment and has subjected all the family members to cruelty. With respect to her reasons seeking transfer of FCOP, the respondent pleaded that the petitioner is a well educated MBA graduate who studied at Hyderabad and was gainfully employed earning Rs.40,000/- per month salary as Senior Customer Service Executive-Credit Card in IDFC Bank and is continuing in the same employment. It is also stated that the petitioner frequently threatens him with suicide and writing a suicide note naming the respondent and his family being the cause for her suicide and thus making him suffer emotionally and mentally leading to filing of FCOP seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent pleaded that all the averments of the transfer petition are exaggerated, with a false narrative and that the petitioner is employed at Hyderabad drawing respectable salary. It is also emphasized that there are good transportation facilities between Hyderabad and Mahabubnagar and there would be no hardship in attending the proceedings. Coming to the pendency of the criminal case and MC before the courts at Mahabubnagar, it is pleaded that all the cases are tried before different courts and therefore, transferring FCOP will not facilitate trial of all the matters rather all the matters will be tried by different courts independently. Further, it is pleaded that the petitioner filed criminal case in Amarachintha of Wanaparthy District and filed the MC in Mahabubnagar District. Currently, the respondent is travelling to Wanaparthy and Mahabubnagar to attend the proceedings in the criminal case and the MC. Therefore, it is pleaded that no purpose would be served in transferring the present FCOP. As such, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made about her employment, to the effect that she lost her job due to recession in the market, that the respondent repeatedly blocked her on WhatsApp and other modes of online communication. Further, it is alleged that the respondent is using abusive language pressuring the petitioner for divorce. The petitioner insisted that her father is suffering from Stage IV osteoarthritis and therefore, cannot travel and accompany her to the courts at Hyderabad. It is alleged that the respondent's conduct causes threat, intimidation and mental harassment, in case the petitioner is required to travel alone to Hyderabad. Since the connected matters are already pending in Mahabubnagar jurisdiction, it is pleaded that contesting the matrimonial dispute at Hyderabad would amount to undue hardship. It is pleaded that the different proceedings initiated in different Courts is an anomaly and that the transfer is sought to consolidate the litigation within one jurisdiction. Since the FCOP is at preliminary stage, it is pleaded that no prejudice would be caused. The petitioner furnished WhatsApp, screenshots, e-mails dated 30.03.2026 and a medical report from the Deccan Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

7. During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is threat to the safety of the petitioner in case she has to travel to courts at Hyderabad to participate in the proceedings of the FCOP. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is no longer employed in Hyderabad, that she has no source of income and there is none to accompany her to Hyderabad as the father is suffering with Grade IV osteoarthritis. To prove the threatening conduct of the respondent, reference is made to email dated March 30, 2026, wherein the respondent addressed an e-mail to the petitioner demanding her to give divorce. Whereas, the petitioner herein replied to the same stating that she has no intention of giving divorce and she intends to live her life with the respondent during this lifetime. Further, to prove that the father is suffering with arthritis, a medical report from the Deccan Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad is produced. In order to demonstrate that the respondent is not allowing any kind of communication, screenshots of WhatsApp are referred to show that several attempts are made by the petitioner to contact the respondent, but there is no response from him.

8. The learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the petitioner's relief of transfer alleging that she was gainfully employed in Hyderabad with salary of Rs.40,000/- per month as a Senior Customer Service Executive, Credit Card in IDFC Bank and that she continues to hold said position. Further, it is emphasized that the petitioner studied M.B.A from Bharat PG College for Women, Hyderabad and has also worked as an Associate Editor at GD Research Center Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. To prove the employment of the petitioner, the screenshot of website showing the contact information of the respondent at IDFC Bank has been furnished. Said screenshot shows the working location of the petitioner at Hyderabad. In reply affidavit, except for stating that the current status of the petitioner is that she is unemployed, there is no denial of her employment at GD Research Center Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad or IDFC Bank as a Senior Customer Service Executive. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had her education at Hyderabad City. The learned counsel for respondent read over the e-mail of the respondent dated 30.03.2026 which was addressed by the respondent to the petitioner demanding divorce. After reading said e-mail, it is contented that the e-mail has no content which poses a threat to the safety of the petitioner, rather the e-mail demonstrate the emotional trauma and distress that the respondent is subjected to on account of the various legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members. It is submitted that the respondent has no faith and no trust in the petitioner and therefore, continuation of the matrimonial life is impossible. Whereas, the petitioner while having communication with other men, is harassing the respondent by denying him divorce.

9. A careful consideration of the versions presented by both the respective parties show that there is lack of trust between the petitioner and the respondent and in all likelihood, there is no conjugal life between them. While the petitioner is claiming that the respondent is addicted to alcohol intoxication, the respondent is alleging that the petitioner was forced to marry him by her parents under threat of suicide, the petitioner has no interest in leading conjugal life with him, that she has no emotional, physical or conjugal relationship and therefore, filed the FCOP seeking divorce. On one hand, the petitioner in her Tr.C.M.P alleged that the petitioner is addicted to alcohol and that he beats her indiscriminately and that there is demand for purchasing a residential accommodation in Bangalore and that led to the filing of the criminal case and the M.C.

10. When it comes to criminal complaint, there is no mention about the respondent being addicted to alcohol or beating indiscriminately rather the complaint is about dowry harassment. Be that as it may, the respondent claims to have been subjected to emotional trauma and distress, humiliation, and his family members are also subjected to humiliation and physical discomfort having to travel from Hyderabad to Mahabubnagar to attend the police stations for counselling and the legal proceedings. In any case, these aspects or the merits of the respective version are not a subject matter of this transfer proceeding and are also not grounds for considering transfer. What is to be considered is the convenience of the wife and husband in prosecuting the cases.

11. There is a plea for transfer on the ground of distance and lack of companions to travel to Hyderabad. The distance between Hyderabad and Mahabubnagar cannot be denied, whereas, the petitioner requiring a companion to travel to Hyderabad is a unlikely proposition, as she pursued her education at Hyderabad and also pursued her employment at Hyderabad. There is no denial that she worked at Hyderabad in two different institutions i.e. GD Research Institute and IDFC Bank. A person who is employed in Hyderabad expecting another person to accompany her for travelling does not seem reasonable, more so, when she is an MBA graduate who pursued the said studies in Hyderabad.

12. The next important aspect to be considered for transfer is the threat perception of the petitioner from respondent. The e-mail that is appended to the reply affidavit does not have a single sentence which remotely indicates physical threat to the petitioner or her family members. The entire e-mail is about the anguish and emotional distress of the respondent, who is desperately waiting for a divorce from the petitioner. The respondent is desperately urging the petitioner to divorce him, so that they can lead peaceful separate lives. Other than desperately seeking divorce, the concerned e-mail does not give rise to any occasion to imagine threat from respondent to the petitioner.

13. Coming to the case of respondent, it is seen that there is a criminal case registered in Wanaparthy jurisdiction which is a different District beside Mahabubnagar. There is a criminal case registered against him for dowry harassment and cruelty for which the respondent is attending the court at Atmakur, Wanaparthy. Mahabubnagar is at a distance of 66 Kilometres from Amarachintha, Wanaparthy District, wherein the M.C is prosecuted by the petitioner. The petitioner says that the native place of her parents is Amarachintha, but they are residing at Mahabubnagar for decades i.e. there is a native house and landed property at Amarachintha, but the usual place of residence of her parents is Mahabubnagar. Further, the petitioner states that after she is necked out by the respondent and his family members, she is living at Mahabubnagar with her parents.

14. Leaving aside the genuineness of the contentions made, the fact remains that the respondent is attending Criminal Court at Wanaparthy District, whereas the Maintenance Case is pursued in Mahabubnagar Town, Mahabubnagar District. It is also a point to be noted that as per the version of the petitioner, the respondent is working in Bangalore and he has to visit Hyderabad for pursuing the FCOP or travel to Mahabubnagar and Wanaparthy from Bangalore.

15. This Court, having perused the previous employment details of the petitioner and her acquaintance with Hyderabad City, is not inclined to believe that the petitioner is subjected to any kind of inconvenience on account of having to travel to Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by this court in Tr.C.M.P.No.504 of 2023, dated 12.02.2024, where a transfer of FCOP is sought from Family Court, Hanumakonda to the Family Court at Khammam and on account of distance and pendency of other proceedings, transfer was permitted. In the instant case, the facts narrated by the petitioner have to be seen as to whether she is entitled to the relief sought for. In Tr.C.M.P.No.504 of 2023, this court observed that the petitioner was a home maker and dependent on her parents and has to look after her child who is aged 4 years. Such fact pattern is not applicable to the present case.

16. In the instant case, the petitioner has no children. She is an educated lady who is capable of taking up employment and has already done so at Hyderabad. There is neither financial nor physical or social constraints on the petitioner and there is no threat perception from the respondent to pursue the matter at Hyderabad. In view of the circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for. However, the petitioner may enter appearance through video conferencing, get her evidence recorded online or through an Advocate Commissioner when necessary. Also, the respondent is directed to pay cost of travel and boarding whenever the petitioner travels to Family Court, Hyderabad at attend court proceedings.

17. In the result, the Tr.C.M.P is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.