Dismissed

Asapu Vinodh, v. Asapu Anusha

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2024TRCMP/174/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a family court maintenance case from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram citing employment difficulties at his work branch. The Court dismissed the transfer petition but directed the trial court not to insist on his physical presence.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition disposed; Family Court to dispose case within six months without insisting on petitioner's presence except for evidence recording.

Asapu Vinodh, Vs Asapu Anusha — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶5

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 174 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Asapu Vinodh, S/o. Siva Prasad, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Senior associate, S.B.I. R/o.Plot No.35, Arundathi Nagar, contonment, Goodsshed, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Asapu Anusha, W/o. Vinodh, Hindu, D/o. Late Guntamukkala Someswara Rao, Aged about 31 years, R/o. D.No.8-57-125, Golla Veedhi, Adarsh Nagar, Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District.

¶11

Asapu Lokesh Babu, S/o. Vinodh, Hindu, Aged about 6 years, being minor. Rep., by her Mother and Natural Guardian Asapu Anusha the 1®‘ Respondent.’ Herein R/o.D.No.8-57-125, Golla Veedhi, Adarsh Nagar, Tagarapuvalasa Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw ^^^^2018 on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and Consequently to transfer the same to the Family Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P No. 450/2018 on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. ARAVALA RAMA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: None

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶19

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

¶20

NO. 174 OF 2022

¶21

ORDER;

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/husband , Mr. Aravala Rama Rao. None appeared for the respondent, though notice served to the respondent No.l through Registry, as per the served postal acknowledgment.

¶23

Thrs petrtion rs filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C), seeking transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 450 of 2018, from Family Court, Visakhapatnam to Family Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, on the ground that now he is working as Senior Associate in State Bank of India, Vizianagaram Branch, Vizianagaram District and it is difficult to get leave from authorities to attend the Court for each and every adjournment. The petitioner submits that respondent No.l, who is his wife and respondent No.2, who is his minor son are residing at Tagarapuvalasa, which is at a distance of 20 Km from Visakhapatnam Town, whereas Visakhapatnam is about 47 km.. due to that respondent may reach Family Court, Visakhapatanam within 30 minutes and it is convenient for both

¶24

¶25

BSS,J Tr.C.M.P.No.l74 of 2022

¶26

parties to attend the Court at Vizianagaram. He prays^toallowthe petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of filing of the petition, as no stay was granted, F.C.O.P.No.450 of 2018 is coming up for cross examination of PW. 1. He would further submit that now the petitioner is working in State Bank of India at Vizianagaram Branch, which is nearer to the place where the respondents are residing. He prays^toallowthe petition.

¶28

Admittedly, marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.l solemnized on 18.10.2013, as per Hindu customs and rites prevails in their community at Visakhapatnam. They^alsoblessed with respondent No.2, now aged six (6) years who is^undercareand custody of respondent No.l. The respondents have filed petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act vide F.C.O.P No. 450 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam claiming maintenance from the petitioner, which case admittedly is coming up for enquiry.

¶29

The respondents have filed petition before Family Court, Visakhapatnam on the ground that they have no means to

¶30

¶31

BSS,J Tr.C.M.P.No.l74 of 2022

¶32

maintain themselves. Whereas the petitioner is working^asSenior Associate in State Bank of India at Vizianagaram Branch. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that as he is working as Senior Associate in State Bank of India at Vizianagaram Branch, it is very difficult for him to attend Court on each and every adjournment at Visakhapatnam and he could not get leave from the authorities. The petitioner already engaged a counsel at Visakhapatnam and filed counter and contesting the case. After considering the nature of the petition filed by the respondents before Family Court and relief sought by them, this Court is of an opinion that it is not a fit case to consider the request petitioner to transfer the case, when the enquiry of the case is already commenced. But after considering the difficulty which expressed by the petitioner, his presence before the Court can be disposed with for each and every adjournment except at the time of recording his evidence. 6. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition iIS dismissed with a direction to the learned Family Court, Vasakhapatnam not to insist the physical presence of present petitioner i.e., respondent in F.C.O.P.No.450 of 2018 and if he engaged counsel, and he can insist his presence whenever it is required or at the time of recording his evidence before the Court.

¶33

¶34

BSS,J Tr.C.M.P.No.l74 of2022

¶35

The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam shall also consider to post the case in any Second Saturday or Sunday of the month and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible^within six (06) months from the date of receipt of orders^ofthisCourt.

¶36

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim stay granted if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶37

Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

To.

//TRUE COPY//

/-SfECTI^N^OFFICER

The Family Court at District. 3. Asapu AnLha W/o'" vi "^ District. Rao. Aged about 31 yeL. R/o.D Someswara 4 T^93''apuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District ’ Rep^ by herMofh^r'^anfNatu'ra'l Gua^San ViSSa^^atna'm ^D^^cf VeedhtTdarth^^^^^arTagarapuvalasa,^ 5. One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate fOPUC] 6. Three C.D Copies . VNA La

f $ t t

»• i’

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/01/2024

ORDER

TRCMP.N0.174 OF 2022

DISMISSING THE TR.CMP

¶49

Asapu Vinodh, v. Asapu Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asapu Vinodh, v. Asapu Anusha

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

Chilaka Koteswaramma Vs Chilaka Vara Prasada Rao

Smt Surisettimanika Vs Dr Surisetti Vidya Sagar

Muthyala Lavanya Vs Muthyala Sreenivas