Dismissed

Gollapally Srikanth v. Gollapally Srilatha

Telangana HC26 Oct 2017TRCRLP/153/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Criminal Petition seeking transfer of maintenance application from Devarakonda Court to L.B.Nagar Court was dismissed. Court found issues not identical and transfer would cause inconvenience and jeopardize wife and children interests.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Criminal Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; order passed on 26th October 2017.

Gollapally Srikanth Vs Gollapally Srilatha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

Tr an sfer Cr im in al Pet it ion No.1 5 3 of 2 0 1 7

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Transfer Criminal Petition, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner requesting to withdraw M.C.No.7 of 2017 from the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, and transfer the same to the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 1 to 3, learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) appearing for the 4^th respondent-State and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two cases are filed by the petitioner, one in O.P.No.421 of 2016 for divorce and the other in O.P.No.1184 of 2017 for custody of children. Both the cases are pending before the I Additional Family Court – cum – IV Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar. The unofficial 1^st respondent/ wife of the petitioner herein filed M.C.No.7 of 2017 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, which is far away from the place of residence of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is apprehending danger at Deverakonda. The contentions and the issues are similar in all the three cases and it would be convenient for the Court at L.B.Nagar to dispose of all the three cases and ultimately prayed to allow this Transfer Criminal Petition as prayed for.

¶7

Dr.SA, J Tr.Crl.P.No.153/2017

¶8

¶9

4 . The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there is inconsistency in the matters. The Court at Devarakonda is convenient to the unofficial 1^st respondent/ wife to seek maintenance. There is no justification to withdraw M.C.No.7 of 2017 from the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, and transfer to the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

5 . In view of the contentions of both the learned counsel, the point for determination is whether M.C.No.7 of 2017 can be withdrawn from the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, and transferred to a Court at L.B.Nagar.

¶11

6 . As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, O.P.No.421 of 2016 is filed for divorce and O.P.No.1184 of 2017 is filed seeking custody of children. Both the cases are pending at the Court at L.B.Nagar. In M.C.No.7 of 2017, there would not be identical issues to determine. The circumstances that are required to allow or negate the maintenance application are distinct from the circumstances required to decide the petitions for divorce and custody of children. Though the petitioner is contending that he is apprehending danger to his life and limb at Devarakonda, he has not made any report to the police and thus, the said submission is unsustainable. Even if the Maintenance Case is decided by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, there wont be any injustice or inconsistency in the orders that would be passed in the cases between the parties to the litigation. To seek maintenance, the wife

¶12

Dr.SA, J Tr.Crl.P.No.153/2017

¶13

¶14

has to go several times to the Court. Even after the disposal of the cases also, she has to go to the Court to get the money in case of Award. Hence, withdrawal of M.C.No.7 of 2017 from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, and transferring the same to the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, would cause inconvenience and it jeopardizes the interest of the 1^st respondent/ wife and her children. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are untenable and requires no consideration. The Transfer Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

7 . In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶16

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶17

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶18

26^th October, 2017 Bvv

Gollapally Srikanth v. Gollapally Srilatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gollapally Srikanth v. Gollapally Srilatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sakhamuri Sreedhar Vs The State of A.P.

M. Suresh Naidu, Vs M. Rama Rao

Adapaka Joseph, Vs Yedla Chiranjeevi Rao

M/s. Fazal Dairy, Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Apsrtc Vs Thalatoti Sundara Rao