Allowed

BommuSailaja at DesireddySailaja v. Bommu Veera Prabhakar Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2022TRCMP/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a transfer complaint allowing the transfer of a matrimonial matter from the Senior Civil Judge at Proddatur to the Family Court Judge at Kunrool. The transfer was granted considering the petitioner's long-distance residence from the original court and citing Supreme Court precedents prioritizing the wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

M.O.P. No.96 of 2021 transferred from Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Kurnool.

BommuSailaja at DesireddySailaja Vs Bommu… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Tr.C.M.P. No.5 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The Tr. C.M.P., is filed seeking to withdraw M.O.P. No.96 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and transfer the same to the IV Additional District Judge-cumFamily Court Judge, Kunrool.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed in the year 2008 and they were blessed with two children, who are studying 7^th and 4^th classes respectively at Sri Chaitanya School, Kurnool. The petitioner filed D.V.C. No.1 of 2021 before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class Prohibition and Excise, Kunool, for protection orders under DVC Act and to grant monthly maintenance. The respondent filed M.O.P.No.96 of 2021 under Section 13(1)(i) a&b of Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner and minor children are residing with her old aged parents at Kurnool since November, 2020. Proddatur is at a distance of 165 Kms., from the present place of residence of the petitioner and it is very difficult for her to go to Proddatur to attend the Court on every date of hearing. Hence, Tr.C.M.P.

¶6

Sri A. Karthik Reddy, learned counsel, filed Vakalath on behalf of the respondent and submits that he does not have any objection for allowing Tr.C.M.P.

¶7

¶8

The number of divorce and related matters are increasing day by day for various reasons and in such matters both the spouses may face genuine difficulties. The spouse against whom the transfer proceeding is instituted would face hardship and inconvenience by being required to commute to a distant court, while the spouse who has instituted the original proceeding may genuinely suffer grave inconvenience if the proceeding is transferred to a distant court within whose jurisdiction the other spouse resides. Hence, the transfer matters have to be decided basing on the facts of each case.

¶9

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena¹ , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in „ K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs. T.A.Shahida² and laid stress on securing speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the said case held as follows:

¶10

“It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of

¶11

1 ‘((2015) 6 SCC 353

¶12

2 ‘(2003) 4 SCC 166

¶13

¶14

the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow.”

¶15

In „ ShamimaFarooqui v. Shahid Khan³ , the Hon‟ble

¶16

Supreme Court held as follows:

¶17

“When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the predicament was not expected to be removed with any kind of magic. However, the fact remains, these litigations can really corrode the human relationship not only today but will also have the impact for years to come and has the potentiality to take a toll on the society. It occurs either due to the uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the courts to curtail them. There need not be hurry but procrastination should not be manifest, reflecting the attitude of the court. As regards the second facet, it is the duty of the court to have the complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a corner tree that stands “still” on some unknown bank of the river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. “Men may come and men may go, but I go on forever.” This would be the greatest tragedy that can happen to the adjudicating system which is required to deal with most sensitive matters between the man and wife or other family members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a proactive approach in this regard and the said approach should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High Courts. For the present, we say no more.”

¶18

In „ Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma⁴ , the

¶19

Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking note of the fact that the wife had

¶20

3 ‘(2015) 5 SCC 705

¶21

4 ‘(2008) 11 SCC 768

¶22

¶23

two minor daughters and appreciating the difficulty, thought it appropriate to transfer the case.

¶24

In „ Neelam Bhatia vs. Satbir Singh Bhatia⁵ , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, when the wife sought transfer of a case and husband resisted the petition stating that the case is at the stage of evidence and pleadings were also completed, declined to transfer the case and directed the husband to bear the to-andfro travelling expenses of the wife and one person accompanying her by train whenever she actually appeared before the Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also directed payment of incidental expenses on the date of hearing in addition to the train fare.

¶25

In „ Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay⁶ ‟, when the wife sought transfer of a case filed by the husband on the ground that she is unable to travel up and down from Delhi to Ara, to defend the matrimonial proceedings and that she has no one with whom she can stay in Ara because her parents are residents of Gurgaon; even though wife is an educated woman and doing very well and husband is unemployed Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that it is the wife‟s convenience that must be looked at and the circumstances indicated are sufficient to allow the transfer petition.

¶26

In „ Sangeeta Alias Shreya vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya⁷ ‟,

¶27

wife filed transfer petition on the ground that she has 2½ years old child, that she has no source of income, and that the wife is not in a position to travel alone. The husband therein took a

¶28

5 ‘(2004) 13 SCC 436

¶29

6(2001) 10 SCC 41

¶30

72004 13 SCC 407

¶31

¶32

plea that he has no income and he is apprehending threats to his life and liberty if he is made to go to Kota, Rajasthan, the place where wife is seeking transfer of matrimonial case. In the said case the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶33

“We are still living in a civilised society. We see no substance in the submission that there would be danger to his life if he attends the Court at Kota and if any threat is given, the respondent can always complaint to that Court and we are sure that his, if one made, will be considered on its merit. Between a husband and a wife, the convenience of the wife must prevail particularly when the wife has a 2½ years old child”.

¶34

In view of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the above referred Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and as the respondent does not have any objection for transferring MOP, M.O.P. No.96 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur is withdrawn from the said court and transferred the same to the IV Additional District Judge-cum-the Family Court Judge, Kurnool, for disposing of the same in accordance with law.

¶35

The Tr.C.M.P., is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Tr.C.M.P., shall stand closed.

¶37

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶38

Date: 15.02.2022 Ks

¶39

¶40

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶41