The Telangana High Court rejected a woman's request to transfer her divorce case from Nirmal to Hyderabad, citing the availability of free public transport for women in the state.

The High Court issued its decision on a petition filed by the wife, requesting the transfer of divorce proceedings from the civil judge's court in Nirmal district to either the family court in R.R. District at L.B. Nagar or the family court in Hyderabad.

A single judge bench of Justice P Sree Sudha said, "Perusal of the record shows that initially respondent gave legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also further stated that in Telangana State, there is no bus fare for women passengers, as such it is not inconvenient for petitioner.''

''As the both parties are residing at Nirmal, this Court finds that there is no reason to transfer this petition from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nirmal to the Principal Family Court Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar or Principal Family Court at Hyderabad. The present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed".

The husband initially filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the civil judge's court in Nirmal, seeking a decree of divorce. In response, the wife lodged a criminal case against her husband and his family members under IPC Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) and the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In her transfer petition before the High Court, the wife stated that she was residing in Hyderabad with her parents and her two-and-a-half-year-old child. She argued that traveling from Hyderabad to Nirmal for each court hearing, especially without male assistance, posed significant challenges.

In his response to the plea, the husband argued that his wife holds an M.Sc. degree in Geology and was employed in the private sector. He claimed that she is actually residing in Nirmal District with her parents and had filed a "false complaint against him and his family members" with the police, manipulating the jurisdiction to Hyderabad by leveraging her brother’s position as a bill collector in the GHMC office.

He also noted that the address provided by the wife in her plea before the civil court was Nirmal, where she had received summons. After receiving these summons, the wife subsequently filed a transfer petition with the High Court.

Case title: X v Y

Counsel for petitioner: M MURALI MOHAN

Counsel for respondent: N KRISHNA SUMANTH