Dismissed

Smt. D. Ramya v. Vijay Charan Rao

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012TRCMP/633/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move divorce proceedings to Hyderabad. While refusing the transfer due to lack of evidence regarding threats, the Court directed the lower court to decide the case within two months and ordered the husband to pay travel expenses for the wife.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the lower court to dispose of OP No.21/2011 within two months; Respondent to pay petitioner Rs.750/- per adjournment.

Smt. D. Ramya Vs Vijay Charan Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.633 OF 2011 ORDER:

¶2

This Transfer CMP is filed with a prayer to withdraw O.P. No.21 of 2011 pending on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, and to transfer it to the file of Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, for trial and disposal.

¶3

2. Heard both sides.

¶4

3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed O.P. No.21 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, against the petitioner for divorce. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent and his parents under Section 498-A IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the S.H.O., Kushaiguda Police Station, Hyderabad by which the S.H.O. registered the case in Crime No.555 of 2011 for the said offences on his file.

¶5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is residing in Hyderabad along with her parents. It is very difficult for her to go to Jagitial for attending the case for each and every adjournment as the distance between Hyderabad and Jagtial is 150 kms, and she has no means to meet the travelling expenses and other incidental expenses. He further has contended that there is threat from the father of the respondent to the petitioner and therefore, it is not safe for her to go to Jagitial.

¶6

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial of the OP was already commenced and in fact, six witnesses were already examined on behalf of the respondent, and hence, there is no need to transfer the matter to the Family Court at Hyderabad as prayed.

¶7

5. There is no basis about the contention of the petitioner that the father of the respondent threatened her with dire consequences.

¶8

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to transfer OP No.21 of 2011 to the Family court at Hyderabad as prayed for.

¶9

7. Hence, the Transfer CMP is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the Court below is directed to dispose of OP No.21 of 2011 within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the respondent shall pay Rs.750/- to the petitioner for her attendance before the Court for each and every adjournment in the OP, towards her traveling and other incidental expenses. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Tr.CMP. shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶11

December 07, 2012. KTL

Smt. D. Ramya v. Vijay Charan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D. Ramya v. Vijay Charan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appala Konda, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

L. Bhoopathi Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager

Md.Rafiq, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Deputy Executive

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Y.Padmanabh Shastri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

R. Malla Reddy, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court