Allowed

Smt. Sapalapalli Padmaja v. Sri D.Mohan Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024TRCMP/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from Palamaner to Nellore, citing distance and care of their two-year-old child. The court, noting the wife's convenience must prevail in matrimonial proceedings and relying on Supreme Court precedent, allowed the transfer to Family Court, Nellore.

What did the court decide?

HMOP.No.55 of 2023 transferred from Senior Civil Judge's Court, Palamaner to Family Court, Nellore; records to be transmitted within two weeks; parties to appear on 10.02.2024; no costs.

Smt. Sapalapalli Padmaja Vs Sri D.Mohan Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶3

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

¶4

No.228 of 2023

¶5

O R D E R:

¶6

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pavani Siva Kumar as well as learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.D.Poornachandra Reddy.

¶7

2. This is wife’s petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of HMOP.No.55 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner of Chittoor District to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore, on the ground that now she is residing in her parents’ house at Nellore along with her child aged two years, whereas her husband filed petition, seeking for divorce before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner with false grounds. The petitioner submits that the distance between Nellore town to Palamaner town is about 250 to 280 kms, and she has to change two buses from Nellore to Palamaner leaving her child, which is difficult for her. She prays to allow the petition.

¶8

¶9

3. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. The respondent submits that now the petitioner is working in Infosys Company at Bengaluru and he is having threat to his life, if he visits Nellore town if the request of the petitioner to transfer the case is considered. He submits that the petitioner and her family members went to an extent of attacking him at Bengaluru itself, due to that he also lodged a report before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, due to that he is having threat to his life at Nellore. He prays to dismiss the petition.

¶10

4. The respondent also filed copy of complaint lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, and coy of Appointment Orders to show that now the petitioner is working in Infosys Company at Bengaluru.

¶11

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is working in Infosys Company at Bengaluru, now she is staying in her parents’ house by opting work from home mode, whereas the respondent, who is also a Software employee, has chosen to file petition seeking for

¶12

¶13

divorce before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner created cause of action, though they lastly resided at Bengaluru, now, the petitioner along with her minor child is residing at Nellore. He prays to allow the petition.

¶14

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is having threat to his life in the hands of the relatives of the petitioner if he attends the Court at Nellore. He would further submit that the petitioner and her family members attacked the respondent at Bengaluru, due to that the respondent also lodged a report before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that though the petitioner is an employee, she has shown in her transfer petition cause title that she is house wife, and when the respondent filed document to show that the petitioner is an employee, now she is coming up with a version that she is working from home. He prays to dismiss the petition.

¶15

7. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 28.02.2020 at L.B.Convention Hall,

¶16

¶17

Kanipakam of Chittoor District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. Now, it is not in dispute that both parties are Software employees and their work place is at Bengaluru. A perusal of Page No.14 of material papers filed along with counter by the respondent, which shows that he himself has stated that the petitioner secured job in Infosys and started working from home from March, 2022 onwards, which supports the contention of the petitioner that she is staying in her parents’ house at Nellore and working from home. It is also not in dispute that the minor child, aged two years is now under the care and custody of the petitioner, who is staying at Nellore. It is no doubt true that the respondent lodged report before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru with regard to alleged attack of the petitioner and her family members, but he is alleged that when the petitioner and her family members came to Palamaner, where also they attacked him, but no complaint is lodged.

¶18

8. It is consistent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of wife has to be considered than inconvenience of husband. Mere apprehension

¶19

¶20

of the respondent is not a ground to reject the contention of the petitioner, seeking for transfer, when she is admittedly having a child, aged two years.

¶21

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sangeetha alias Shreya vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya¹ while dealing with the similar facts held that the inconvenience of the wife must prevail when the wife has a child aged 2 ½ years old). There are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer HMOP.No.55 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner to Family Court, Nellore, as the petitioner is residing within the Municipal limits of Nellore city.

¶22

10. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. HMOP.No.55 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner of Chittoor District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Nellore. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner of Chittoor District shall transmit the case records in HMOP.No.55 of 2023 after duly indexed to Family Court, Nellore as expeditiously as possible, within a period of

¶23

1 (2004) 13 SCC 407

¶24

¶25

two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present petition. Both parties shall appear before Family Court, Nellore on 10.02.2024 at 10.30 a.m. The learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore shall not insist physical presence of the respondent for each and every adjournment, if he engages counsel. He shall consider to post the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband on any Second Saturday and Sunday to avoid inconvenience to both parties. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.

¶26

____________________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶27

Date :03.01.2024 Bsv

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶30

Tr.CMP No.228 of 2023

¶31

Date : 03.01.2024

¶32

Bsv

Smt. Sapalapalli Padmaja v. Sri D.Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sapalapalli Padmaja v. Sri D.Mohan Kumar

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Raziya Vs Shaik Ali Usman Basha

Sanagapati at Chandavolu Kamala Pratyusha Vs Sanagapati Naga Teja

K.Venkatarami Reddy, Vs K.Ramasuguna Reddy

Rachepalli Nagaswathi Vs Ganugapenta J. Vijayasimha

R.Bairappa Vs the State of a.P., and Another

Gunda Naresh Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh