Allowed

Chilaka Koteswaramma v. Chilaka Vara Prasada Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2024TRCMP/173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a wife's petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer divorce proceedings from Rajam to Visakhapatnam Family Court. The court noted her ill health, residence near Visakhapatnam, and the need to prioritize the wife's convenience over the husband's. The transfer is ordered with a record transmission timeline.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2023 is withdrawn from Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, and transferred to V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Records to be transmitted within tw

Chilaka Koteswaramma Vs Chilaka Vara Prasada… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

¶2

No.173 of 2023

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/wife

¶5

Mr.Mulla Sohail Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though notice served as per the served postal acknowledgment received by the Registry. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed memo before the Registry along with postal track report to show that notice sent the respondent has been delivered to him.

¶6

02. This is wife’s petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “C.P.C.”), seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam to V Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that now she is residing in her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam along with her two children, whereas her husband filed petition seeking for divorce before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajam with false grounds. The petitioner submits that she is suffering from ill health and she is having threat to her life, if she visits Court at

¶7

¶8

Rajam. It is also contention of the petitioner that she is suffering from ill health, due to that she is not a position to travel a distance of 120 kms from Visakhapatanam City to Rajam of Srikakulam District to put forth her defence in the divorce petition filed by her husband. She prays to allow the petitioner.

¶9

03. The respondent not chosen to appear to deny the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. Admittedly, marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 05.03.2003 at Visakhapatnam City as per Hindu rites and customs prevailed

¶10

in their community. It is also not in dispute that the couple blessed two male children, now aged 18 and 16 years, who are under care and custody of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent not even paid school fees of the children and chosen to file petition seeking divorce from the petitioner. After considering the contention of the petitioner that she is suffering from ill health, who is also looking after welfare of the two children, certainly it would be difficult for her to travel from Visakhapatnam City to Rajam Town of Srikakulam District, to put forth her defence in a divorce petitioner filed by her husband. In matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife is to be

¶11

¶12

considered than inconvenience of the husband. In the present

¶13

case, the respondent not chosen to appear to put forth any inconvenience if the request of the petitioner to transfer the divorce petition is considered. There are grounds to transfer H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam Town of Srikakulam District to V Additional District and Sessions Judge -cumFamily Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

4. In the result, the petition is allowed. H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The learned Judge, Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, shall transmit case records in H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2023 to V Additional District and

¶15

Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District after duly indexed, as expeditiously as possible within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of Order of this Court in the present petition. Both parties shall appear before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-

¶16

¶17

cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam on 10.02.2024 at 10.30 A.M.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶20

closed. The interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.

¶21

__________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶22

Date :08.01.2024. Vnb

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶25

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

¶26

No.173 of 2023

¶27

Date : 08.01.2024

¶28

Vnb

Chilaka Koteswaramma v. Chilaka Vara Prasada Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilaka Koteswaramma v. Chilaka Vara Prasada Rao

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

Smt.Bathula Lakshmi Tulasi Vs Sri Bathulasankar Rao

Smt. Penamatsa Venkata Subbayamma Vs Smt.Penmatsa Parvathi

Shaik Rusheena Begum Vs Mohammaed Huzur Anwar Parvez

Asapu Vinodh, Vs Asapu Anusha

Smt Surisettimanika Vs Dr Surisetti Vidya Sagar

Muthyala Lavanya Vs Muthyala Sreenivas