Allowed

Gujjala Sri Lakshmi v. Gujjula Anjaneyulu

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2021TRCMP/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court transferred a family court petition from Vijayawada to Ongole. The petitioner-wife, residing in Ongole, faced significant difficulty attending court at Vijayawada (140 km) with a 4-year-old child without male assistance. The transfer account for the wife's dominance was the deciding factor. The court emphasized convenience for the wife over the husband in such circumstances.

What did the court decide?

FCOP.No.1377 of 2019 is transferred from Family Court, Vijayawada to Family Court, Ongole for trial and disposal. Transferee Court directed to transmit the record.

Gujjala Sri Lakshmi Vs Gujjula Anjaneyulu — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the petitioner-wife requesting to withdraw FCOP.No.1377 of 2019 from the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, for trial and disposal in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 10.06.2011. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 28.11.2014. Thereafter, due to some disputes in the marital life, she left the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parents at Pallamalli village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. She filed MC.No.15 of 2018 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole, seeking maintenance for herself and for the son. She also filed DVC.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Ongole and the same is also pending. While so, the respondent filed FCOP.No.1377 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking divorce. As she is facing difficulty to attend the said Court at Vijayawada from Ongole, the present transfer petition came to be filed.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that to attend the OP filed by the respondent, petitioner has to travel nearly 140 KMs, along with four years boy, for which the petitioner requires male assistance. Since estrangement, the petitioner has been staying with her parents at a village in Prakasam District. Petitioner has no male assistance to accompany her to attend the Court at Vijayawada. Petitioner is not an earning member and is depending on her parents. It is very difficult for the petitioner to attend the

¶6

¶7

Court at Vijayawada alone along with the four years boy. Further, the respondent is already attending the MC and DVC filed by the petitioner before the Courts at Ongole and he had engaged an advocate. If the present case is also transferred to Ongole, it would not be difficult for the respondent to attend the Court. He being a male could travel by train and leave the place whereas the petitioner has to attend the Court at Vijayawada along with the small child by spending money for auto from her residence to Ongole and from Ongole to Vijayawada by bus and again in auto to the Court. The respondent would not be able to meet the expenses incurred by the petitioner to the Court as he is working as a muta mastry. Even in MC he is not paying any maintenance.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the distance between Ongole and Vijayawada is only 140 KMs. The petitioner can travel along with the child to attend the Court. It is not inconvenient or cumbersome to her. Whereas the respondent is working as a muta mastry and also attending on his old aged parents. So as to attend the Court at Ongole, he has to leave the old parents at house. He also would be deprived of his income on the date of attending the Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the combined High Court in Chejerla Srilakshmi v. Chejerla Ramesh Babu [2018(4) ALD 162] wherein it was held that it is not always to look into the convenience of the wife alone and directed the respondent to pay travelling and other incidental expenses to the petitioner and also the companion who accompanies her to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam. He also placed reliance on an unreported order dated 14.02.2018 in Tr.C.M.P.No.74 of 2018 wherein it was held that for the petitioner therein who was aged about 26 years attending Court on two or three occasions during pendency of HMOP by undertaking journey covering distance of 300 KMs is not an arduous task to her.

¶9

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that it is inconvenient for the wife to go to Vijayawada along with a small boy to attend the case filed by the husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] held that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over that of the husband and her financial capacity to contest the case and in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41], held that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into however not always but in the factual situation where she has to attend Court along with a child and stay in the Court for the entire day and she has to leave the Court after Court hours and reach her residence which is very difficult. In the present case respondent with his meager income being earned by working as a muta mastry could not be shouldered with the expenses incurred by the petitioner for herself and companion on the days of attending the Court. In those circumstances, this Court felt it appropriate to grant the relief to the petitioner; thereby she shall be given fair opportunity to contest the case.

¶11

In the result, the Tr.C.M.P is allowed and the FCOP.No.1377 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, is withdrawn from the file of the said Court and is transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, for trial and disposal in accordance with the procedure established by law. Accordingly, the transferor Court is directed to forthwith transmit the record in FCOP.No.1377 of 2019 to the transferee Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Transfer CMP, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J

¶14

13.12.2021 Vjl

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶17

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2020

¶18