Allowed

Smt. Annaluru Praveena v. Mr. Annaluru Surya Mohan

Telangana HC16 Nov 2017TRCMP/422/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants a transfer civil miscellaneous petition filed by a wife under Section 24 CPC. Accepting that proof of service by track record was sufficient and noting the need for common trial to avoid duplication of evidence and inconvenience to the wife, the court transferred the husband's divorce petition to the Visakhapatnam Family Court where the wife's restitution petition is pending.

What did the court decide?

F.C.O.P.No.2209 of 2016 was withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Visakhapatnam to be tried along with F.C.O.P.No.781 of 2017.

Smt. Annaluru Praveena Vs Mr. Annaluru Surya Mohan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.422 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The transfer petition is filed by the petitioner/ wife under Section 24 C.P.C., to transfer F.C.O.P.No.2209 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to the Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

Proof of service by track record of party left is a sufficient service. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the respondent, who is the petitioner in said F.C.O.P. also got knowledge since memo filed before the lower Court pending transfer petition. Hence, taken as heard the respondent and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

It is stated by the petitioner/ wife in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition that she filed F.C.O.P.No.781 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for restitution of conjugal rights and that she is unable to travel lonely all through from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad, to attend the divorce F.C.O.P.No.2209 of 2016 filed by her husband.

¶8

Having regard to the above and both the matters are required common trial from the common evidence involved, to avoid duplication and waste of time of the parties and also the respective Courts and from the settled expression of the Apex

¶9

¶10

Court in T.Gayatri Devi v. Dr.Pallepaneni Srikanth¹ , the convenience of the wife is more for consideration than that of the husband in matrimonial matters, F.C.O.P.No.2209 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is withdrawn, and transferred to the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to be tried along with F.C.O.P.No.781 of 2017. Needless to say, the personal appearance of the respondent in both the matters can be dispensed with, if representing through advocate unless specifically required for reconciliation or evidence etc.,

¶11

Accordingly, the Tr.C.M.P. is allowed.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this

¶13

case shall stand closed in consequence. There shall be no order as

¶14

to costs.

¶15

_________________________
DR.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 16.11.2017
pab

¶16

1 2013(6) ALT 42 (SC)

Smt. Annaluru Praveena v. Mr. Annaluru Surya Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annaluru Praveena v. Mr. Annaluru Surya Mohan

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

Kovvuri Nagi Reddy and Another Vs Kovvuri Dharma Raju (Died) and 2 Others

Macherla Bharathi , Batta Bharathi, Vs Batta Gangadhar

Smt. Bokka Sridevi Lavanya, Vs Sri. Bokka Janaki Rambabu

Smt. Yedida Parvathi Vs Smt. Yedida Ammani (died)

M/s. Nellore Finance Corporation, Vs Dr. N. Prabhakar Naidu

Kothapalli Jachin, Vs K.Jair,]