Allowed

Smt. Medishetti Sandhya Rani v. Medishetti Veera Venkata Satyanadam

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Sept 2022TRCMP/78/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer petition to move a restitution of conjugal rights petition from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam to avoid hardship for the wife residing over 150 km away, relying on Apex Court principles preferring female convenience.

What did the court decide?

HMOP No.308 of 2021 withdrawn from III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and transferred to Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

Smt. Medishetti Sandhya Rani Vs Medishetti… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶3

Tr.C.M.P.No.78 of 2022

¶4

O R D E R:

¶5

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed

¶6

to withdraw HMOP No.308 of 2021 from the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶8

perused the record.

¶9

In compliance of the order, dated 09.03.2022 of

¶10

this Court, personal notice was issued to the counsel for the respondent by the petitioner’s counsel and it was served as

¶11

per the postal acknowledgement, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner filed Memo of proof of service vide U.S.R.No.14191 of 2022, dated 24.03.2022. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance for the Respondent. Accordingly, we are proceeding basing on the material available on record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wife and the respondent is husband. Due to

¶13

¶14

disputes between them, the respondent filed HMOP No.308 of 2021 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is residing at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, along with her two children. Being a woman, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Kakinada on every date of adjournment, without any male assistance, as the distance between Gajuwaka, Visakhapantam District, and Kakinada is more than 150 KMs. Apart from that, she has no financial capacity to bear the expenses to travel. Therefore, the petitioner prays to withdraw HMOP No.308 of 2021 from the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in the interest of justice.

¶16

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears that H.M.O.P.No.308 of 2021 is pending for consideration before the III Senior Civil Judge,

¶17

¶18

Kakinada. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. Being a woman, the petitioner cannot travel from Gajuwaka to Kakinada on every date of adjournment, without any male assistance, as the distance between Gajuwaka to Kakinada is more than 150 KM. If H.M.O.P No.308 of 2021 filed by the respondent is transferred to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and the respondent has to attend the Court at Visakhaptnam. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to transfer H.M.O.P No.308 of 2021 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada to the court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in the interest of justice.

¶19

7) In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v Kishor Babulal

¶20

Pardeshi¹ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while going into the merits of a transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weight and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants, and the Courts should

¶21

1 2005(12) SCC 237

¶22

¶23

desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships. Therefore, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶24

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P No.308 of 2021 from the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned III Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, shall transmit the entire record in H.M.O.P No.308 of 2021 pending on its file to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, forthwith, by duly indexed.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶27

this petition shall stand closed.

¶28

Dt.26.09.2022.

¶29

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶30

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶33

Tr.C.M.P.No.78 of 2022

¶34

Dt.26.09.2022

¶35

Smt. Medishetti Sandhya Rani v. Medishetti Veera Venkata Satyanadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Medishetti Sandhya Rani v. Medishetti Veera Venkata Satyanadam

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

Devanaboyina Lakshmi Samrajyam Died Vs Sri Nersu Veeraiah

M/s Tatituru Inland Fisherman Co-Operative Society Limited, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Nagaram Chengalaraya Chetty Vs The Assistant Director

Sankuri Venkata Priyanka Vs Mahadasu Sai Sridhar

Maddimsetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy Vs Dasari Narasimha Swamy

Borra Ratna Sahithi Vs Nagula Gopi