Allowed

Deepika Kunapareddy v. Gajula Hari Babu

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2023TRCMP/424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a wife's petition under Section 24 CPC for transfer of a judicial separation case from Guntur to Vijayawada to be tried jointly with a custody case pending there, citing the need to avoid conflicting decisions.

What did the court decide?

FCOP No.576 of 2022 is withdrawn from Family Court, Guntur and transferred to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada for joint trial with GWOP No.779 of 2021.

Deepika Kunapareddy Vs Gajula Hari Babu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶3

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

¶4

No.424 of 2022

¶5

O R D E R:

¶6

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.S.P.Suresh Kumar. None appeared for the

¶7

respondent, though notice served to the respondent as per postal track report and served postal acknowledgment to the address shown by him in FCOP No.576 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Guntur.

¶8

2. This is wife’s petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of FCOP.No.576 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Guntur to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with GWOP No.779 of 2021.

¶9

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 25.04.2012 in a function hall at Vijayawada of Krishna District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community, and thereafter she is blessed with a male child on

¶10

¶11

21.03.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to disputes with the respondent, now she is residing in her parents’ house at Vijayawada along with her child, whereas the respondent filed GWOP No.779 of 2021 on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada for custody of the minor child, wherein she filed counter opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent having filed GWOP for seeking custody of the minor child, has chosen to file FCOP No.576 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Guntur under Section 10(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation with false grounds. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in both cases, her contention is similar, due to that to avoid conflicting decisions both cases have to be tried by the same Court. She prays to allow the petition.

¶12

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/husband having chosen to file GWOP before the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada has chosen to file petition for judicial separation before the Family

¶13

¶14

Court, Guntur and in both cases the contention of both sides are similar and to avoid any conflicting decisions common trial has to be conducted. He prays to allow the petition.

¶15

5. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 25.04.2012 in a function hall at Vijayawada and coupled blessed with a male child on 21.03.2014, who is now residing with the petitioner at Vijayawada. A perusal of copy of FCOP No.576 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Guntur filed by the respondent, wherein also he has stated that he has filed GWOP No.779 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada which is pending. The contention of both sides in those cases is appears to be similar, due to that to avoid any conflicting decisions, both cases have to be tried by the same Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik,¹ wherein it is held at Para Nos.9 and 10, which reads as under:-

¶16

1 (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627)

¶17

¶18

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶19

10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions”.

¶20

6. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶21

Court in the above referred decision, this Court is of an opinion that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer FCOP.No.576 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Guntur to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with GWOP No.779 of 2021.

¶22

7. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. FCOP.No.576 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family

¶23

¶24

Court, Guntur is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with GWOP No.779 of 2021. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur shall transmit the case records in FCOP.No.576 of 2022 after duly indexed to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present petition. Both parties shall appear before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada on 22.12.2023 at 10.30 a.m. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.

¶25

____________________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶26

Date :01.12.2023 Bsv

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶29

Tr.CMP No.424 of 2022

¶30

Date : 01.12.2023

¶31

Bsv

Deepika Kunapareddy v. Gajula Hari Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepika Kunapareddy v. Gajula Hari Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadlamannati Rajyalakshmi Vs Perali Venkata Sai Teja

K. Rajendra Prasad, Vs M/s Sakthi Finance Ltd.

Mrs.Nagineni Mani Kumari, Vs Mr.Nagineni Uma Mahesh

Neelurijahnavi Vs Neeluriharinath

Smt.Buddepu Lavanya Vs Buddepu Gowri Sankar Reddy

Gadi Praveena Kumari Vs Gadi Madhav Reddy