Allowed

Bedire Deepthi v. B Nageswara Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jul 2019TRCMP/645/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of divorce petition due to husband's harassment and current residence near police station of the matrimonial dispute. Court allowed transfer and dispensed with husband's attendance unless specifically required, prioritizing wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

O.P. No.114 of 2017 transferred from Family Court, Ananthapuramu to Additional Sessions Judge, Nandikotkuru; Respondent's attendance dispensed with.

Bedire Deepthi Vs B Nageswara Rao — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

Transfer C.M.P. No.645 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the wife seeking to transfer O.P.No.114 of 2017 from the Court of Family Judge, Ananthapuramu, and transfer the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nandikotkuru, Kurnool District.

¶5

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The grounds, on which the 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, demanding additional dowry, and also attempted to kill her. On 10.6.2017, the petitioner along with the children was necked out of the matrimonial home. Having no other go, she went to her parents’ house along with the children. She lodged a complaint against her husband, which was registered as Crime No.140 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nandikotkuru Police Station, for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent filed O.P. No.114 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Ananthapuramu, under Section 13(1)(a), (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for dissolution of the marriage. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not in a position to travel from Nandikotkuru to Ananthapuramu along with the children, without the assistance of male members of the family. Invariably, the respondent has to attend the criminal court at Nandikotkuru, in connection with Crime No.140 of 2017.

¶7

¶8

The counsel for the respondent seeks to dispense with the presence of the respondent before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur (transferee Court), on each and every date of adjournment.

¶9

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. 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 O.P.No.114 of 2017 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Ananthapuramu and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nandikotkuru. The presence of the respondent before the transferee Court, in connection with O.P. No.114 of 2017 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required for the proceedings of the case.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________ SMT T. RAJANI,J

¶12

July 02, 2019. YS

¶13

1 (2005)12 SCC 237

Bedire Deepthi v. B Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedire Deepthi v. B Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eeda Suresh Lal at Bose Vs Nethala John Ratnam

Manga Venkata Lakshmi Vs Gudivada Sarojini Devi

Apsrtc Vs P Parvathi

Chinnamsetty Muralikrishna Vs The District Collector

Akkala Haseem Babu Vs Palivala Indira Alias Akkala Indira

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Derangula Ratna