The court held that travel distance is not a ground to transfer a family case. Instead, it directed the original court to allow video conferencing or deposit of travel expenses for the petitioner's appearance.
Injunction not to insist on petitioner's appearance on every adjournment; judge may require travel cost deposit or use video conferencing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Tr.C.M.P.No.354 of 2017
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is filed to withdraw O.P.No.856 of 2017 pending on the file of Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Bagar and transfer the same to the file of Family Court Judge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
“In matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility. 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.”
1 AIR 2017 SC 1345
2
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY J
Date: 08.06.2017 kvrm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether inability to undertake a long journey with a child is a valid ground to withdraw a family law case to another court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish NagamFollowed¶6
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, 1 AIR 2017 SC 1345 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Wife
Husband
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
