Allowed

Thotakura Praveena Alias Bellamkonda Praveen v. Thotakura Venkata Krishna

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2021TRCMP/286/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for transfer under Section 24 CPC, the High Court granted transfer of the husband's Hindu Marriage Act divorce petition from the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali, to the Family Court, Vijayawada. The transfer was ordered to be tried along with the wife's pending restitution of conjugal rights petition to avoid conflicting judgments and considering the wife's hardship. The apprehens

What did the court decide?

Transfer of HMOP.No.160 of 2019 from Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali, to the Family Court, Vijayawada, for trial and disposal.

Thotakura Praveena Alias Bellamkonda Praveen… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Tr.C.M.P.No.286 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the petitioner-wife requesting to transfer H.M.O.P.No.160 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali to the file of learned Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for trial and disposal in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶5

The case of the petitioner/wife is that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 22.11.2009 as per Hindu customs, rites and rituals. Out of wedlock they were blessed with two children namely Prudvi Naga Sai and Indira Naga Sai. The respondent left for Dubai in August, 2018 and returned in August, 2019. Thereafter, due to disputes, there was estrangement between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondenthusband had filed HMOP.No.160 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali, for divorce. Petitioner filed FCOP.No.1541 of 2019, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, for restitution of conjugal rights. In these circumstances, she is constrained to file the present petition requesting to transfer the HMOP filed by the husband from Tenali to the Court at Vijayawada to be tried along with FCOP filed by the wife.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to avoid conflicting judgments, it is appropriate to get transfer the HMOP filed by the husband before the Senior Civil Judge Court to the Family Court, Vijayawada as the FCOP filed by the wife pending before the Family Court cannot be transferred

¶7

¶8

to Senior Civil Judge Court whereas OP Filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court can be transferred to Family Court as per the law laid down by this Court in Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Manikya Prasuna v. Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Ramana Murthy [ 2019(2) ALT 1 ] . Further, if the wife has to appear before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, she has to undertake travel from Vijayawada to Tenali, which is of 40 KMs distance along with two school going children. The petitioner’s mother expired and father alone will be in the house. There will be no one to look after the children. Petitioner has no other male assistance to accompany to Tenali for attending the Court case. Petitioner is not an earning member and is depending on her father. She has to incur travelling and incidental expenses while attending the Court at Tenali.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the averments in the counter, submits that the respondent apprehends that the petitioner is likely to cause harm to the respondent and there is a threat to the respondent and the witnesses in the hands of anti social elements if they go to Vijayawada.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court found that it is inconvenient and cumbersome to the petitioner – wife to attend the Court at Tenali along with two children, that too, without any male support/assistance. The apprehension of the respondent – husband with regard to threat is unfounded. The respondent – husband is well educated and doing business by establishing painting shop. It would not be inconvenient for him to come to Vijayawada. In matrimonial matters, the Presiding Officer of the Family Court has to conduct counselling between the wife and husband to live together for which the matter has to be posted conveniently to counsel them and the parties have to cooperate and they have to stay along with children in the Court premises. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor

¶11

¶12

Babulal Pardeshi [ (2005) 12 SCC 237 ], Sanjay Kumar Gulati v. N.P Singh and another [(2005) 12 SCC 396] and in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another [ (2001) 10 SCC 41 ] held that wife’s convenience should be looked into in matrimonial cases, thereby she shall be given fair opportunity to defend the case. The inconvenience of the wife in attending the Court weighs with this Court to grant relief to the petitioner. Further, bringing the cases filed by both the parties to the file of one and the same Court helps in avoiding conflicting decisions and in saving the time and money of both the parties. In the facts and circumstances stated by the petitioner/wife and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is just and fair to grant the relief as such a course sub serves the ends of Justice.

¶13

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the HMOP.No.160 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali, is withdrawn from the file of the said Court and is transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, for trial and disposal in accordance with the procedure established by law. Accordingly, the transferor Court is directed to forthwith transmit the record in HMOP.No.160 of 2019 to the transferee Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this TRCMP shall stand closed.

¶15

___________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶16

16.12.2021 Vjl

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶19

Tr.C.M.P.No.286 of 2019

¶20

16.12.2021

¶21

Vjl

Thotakura Praveena Alias Bellamkonda Praveen v. Thotakura Venkata Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thotakura Praveena Alias Bellamkonda Praveen v. Thotakura Venkata Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kinaragiri Seshamma Vs Joint Collector

Rajulapati Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jallepalli Rama Koteswara Rao, Guntur Vs Kantilal Dande, Guntur Dist. and Another

B.Amarnatha Reddy Vs Ms.Nagalakshmi Selvarajan I.A.S.

Mallela Venkataravamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Samaluru Raja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh