Dismissed

Buchi Sravanthi , Divyasree v. Mull Krishna Jayantha Reddy

Telangana HC5 Jun 2017TRCMP/339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a transfer petition claiming financial and physical hardship prevented the petitioner from attending a family court over 450 km away. It relied on Supreme Court guidelines to order the petitioner's attendance only when required for cross-examination, directing the opposing party to deposit travel costs and discouraging insistence on frequent appearances.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent to deposit travel costs; petitioner to appear only when required for cross-examination or specific purposes.

Buchi Sravanthi , Divyasree Vs Mull Krishna… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TR.C.M.P.NO.339 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.63 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur and transfer the same to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Guntur on the ground that the petitioner cannot undertake journey without any assistance as the distance between Guntur to Anantapur is about 450 kilometres and that she is not having sufficient means to travel.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission.

¶5

As seen from the allegations made in the petition,

¶6

admittedly, the petitioner filed a criminal case against the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, which was numbered as C.C.No.84 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and the same is pending. She also filed maintenance case against the respondent before the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, and in connection with those two cases, the respondent is attending the Court at Guntur. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.63 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶7

The ground urged before this Court is that the petitioner is unable to undertake journey of more than 450 kilometres on each and every date of adjournment and that she is not having sufficient means to attend the Court at Guntur. No doubt, it is difficult for a

¶8

MSM,J trcmp_339_2017

¶9

¶10

woman to undertake such a journey frequently. But, that by itself is not a ground to withdraw and transfer the case from one Court to another. In view of latest Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶11

in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam¹ , where the Hon’ble Apex Court issued certain guidelines to the Judges, which reads thus:

¶12

“Spirit behind the orders of this Court in allowing the transfer petitions filed by wives being almost mechanically allowing is that they are not denied justice on account of their inability to participate in proceedings instituted at a different place on account of difficulty either on account of financial or physical hardship. Our Constitutional scheme provides for guaranteeing equal access to justice, power of the State to make special provisions for women and children and duty to uphold the dignity of women. Various steps have been taken in this direction. However, the Apex Court also issued certain directions in para 18 of its judgment, which read thus:

¶13

i) Availability of video conferencing facility.

¶14

ii) Availability of legal aid service. iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure. iv) E-Mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate.”

¶15

In view of above guidelines, the inconvenience to undertake a journey may not be a ground to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.63 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur to the file of Judge, Family Court, Guntur and at best the witness can be examined by video conference. However, in view of difficulty expressed by the petitioner to undertake journey of

1 AIR 2017 SC 1345

MSM,J trcmp_339_2017

more than 450 kilometres, Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur is directed not to insist the petitioner to appear on every date of adjournment, except on the dates where her presence is required, more particularly when the petitioner is required to be crossexamined by the counsel for the respondent (counsel for the petitioner in O.P.). This direction would meet the ends of justice to serve the purpose.

¶20

Hence, I find that the ground urged by the petitioner is not tenable to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.63 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. However, following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni’s case (supra), the respondent is directed to deposit costs of travel, lodging and boarding expenses and on such deposit, the petitioner shall appear before the Court on the date when her presence is required for cross-examination or for any other purpose.

¶21

With the above direction, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶23

JUNE 05, 2017 YVL

¶24

MSM,J trcmp_339_2017

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶27

TR.C.M.P.NO.339 OF 2017

¶28

Date: 05.06.2017

¶29

YVL

Buchi Sravanthi , Divyasree v. Mull Krishna Jayantha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buchi Sravanthi , Divyasree v. Mull Krishna Jayantha Reddy

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

Bhupathi Gurumurthy Vs Yerramsetty Ramulamma

K. Aparna Vs K. Mohan Rao

V.Lohita Vs Sri Sivella Yadaiah

Mahaboob Khatoon, Vs J. Mohammad Suleman Khan , Imran Khan

Bodapudi Rani Vs Bommineni Papi Reddy

Rapuru Yanadi Reddy Vs M/s. Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited