Representing her case, the petitioner highlighted several practical difficulties that made attending court in Repalle a near-impossible task:

The Distance Factor: The distance between Repalle and Ongole is over 100 kilometers. Traveling this distance for every hearing meant significant physical strain and financial expenditure.
Care of Minor Children: The wife is currently residing with her two children, both of whom are pursuing their education in Ongole. Leaving them unattended to travel for a legal case was a major concern.
Lack of Male Assistance: The petitioner asserted that she lacked a male companion or family member who could consistently accompany her on these long journeys, raising safety and logistical concerns.

Her primary argument was simple: as a woman with limited resources and the primary responsibility of child-rearing, her convenience should be the court’s paramount consideration.

The respondent-husband opposed the transfer petition with vigor. His counsel argued that the transfer request was merely a tactic to "drag the proceedings" and delay the finality of the divorce.

Furthermore, the husband highlighted his own professional difficulties. As a private employee working in Hyderabad, he argued that moving the case to Ongole would make it even harder for him to attend hearings while managing his work commitments. He contended that since the case had already been pending in Repalle for years, it should reach its conclusion there.

After hearing both sides, Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao focused on the established legal precedents regarding matrimonial transfers. The Court noted that in such matters, the law generally leans towards the woman because of the inherent social and economic disparities often present in such disputes.