Allowed

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery / Kavya v. Gotivada Krishna

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2019TRCMP/216/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a transfer petition to move a dissolution of marriage proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Amalapuram. This decision favored the wife's convenience due to domestic harassment and her ongoing criminal proceedings at the latter venue.

What did the court decide?

Transfer C.M.P. No.216 of 2018 allowed; F.C.O.P.No.1521 of 2017 withdrawn from Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery /… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

Transfer C.M.P. No.216 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1521 of 2017 from the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

¶5

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, in spite of service of notice.

¶6

The grounds, on which the transfer petition is filed, are that petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The petitioner is living separately from the respondent as he harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally and even tried to kill her, for additional dowry. Unable to bear the harassment, the petitioner came to her parents’ house at Amalapuram. She filed C.C.No.272 of 2014 against the respondent, which is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram. She also filed M.C.No.34 of 2017 before the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance for herself and the children from the respondent. The respondent filed F.C.O.P. No.1521 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that she is not in a position to travel from Amalapuram to Visakhapatnam, without the assistance

¶8

¶9

of male members of the family. Invariably, the respondent has to attend the Criminal Courts at Amalapuram in connection with M.C. No.34 of 2017 and C.C. No.272 of 2014.

¶10

Considering the submissions of the counsel for petitioner, which are reiteration of the grounds mentioned in the petition, and also by considering the judgment in Rajani Kishore Pardeshi vs.

¶11

Kishore Babulal Paradeshi¹ , wherein the Apex Court observed that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband, the Transfer CMP is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.1521 of 2017 is withdrawn from the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending

¶13

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________ SMT T. RAJANI,J

¶15

August 01, 2019. YS

¶16

1 (2005)12 SCC 237

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery / Kavya v. Gotivada Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery / Kavya v. Gotivada Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Venugopal Chetty Vs a Vijaya Kumar

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd, Guntur Dist Vs P Lakshmi, Prakasam Dist and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur Dist Vs Pullela Subbaravamma, Prakasam Dist and Two Others

Potturi Sivanageswara Rao Vs Kamisetty Chennakesavulu

Y.Panduranga Rao Vs Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi

Biruduraju Sasi Rekha at Poranki Sasi Rekha Vs Poranki Ramachandra