Disposed

Mutte Spandana v. Mutte Jyothandranath

Telangana HC2 Feb 2018TRCMP/45/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a transfer petition by a wife facing hardship traveling to Vijayawada for a Family Court case. It refused transfer based on pending DVC or threat allegations lacking evidence but mandated reimbursement for travel expenses if she appears and directed the Family Court to provide police protection against harassment.

What did the court decide?

Directed that respondent pay travel and incidental expenses for petitioner’s appearance. Court need not insist on petitioner’s personal appearance unless conciliation is required. Judge, Family Court,

Mutte Spandana Vs Mutte Jyothandranath — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Tr . CI VI L MI SCELLEANEI OUS PETI TI ON No.4 5 of 2 0 1 8

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of CPC, is filed by the petitioner/ wife to withdraw FCOP No.921 of 2017 pending on the file of Family Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transfer to the Judge, Family Court at Eluru, West Godavari District, on the following grounds:

¶5

(i) She being a lady staying with her parents unable to meet the traveling and other incidental expenses to appear before the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District, covering distance of 70 Km; and

¶6

(ii) She filed DVC No.28 of 2014 before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Eluru, against the respondent and his parents, which is pending; and

¶7

(iii) She is facing life threat in the hands of the respondent whenever she attends the Court in connection with the FCOP No.921 of 2017 pending on the file of Judge, Family, Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District and prayed to withdraw FCOP 921 of 2017 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the case to the Judge, Family Court at Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission, who reiterated the grounds urged in the petition.

¶9

The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she being a lady is unable to bear the traveling and other incidental expenses and not in a position to appear before the Judge, Family Court

¶10

¶11

at Vijayawada, Krishna District, covering a distance of more than 70 Km. No doubt, appearing before the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, on every date of adjournment, is a difficult task for a lady. In view of the same, if the appearance of the petitioner before the Court at Vijayawada, is dispensed with, it would serve the purpose. Therefore, the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District, is directed not to insist the petitioner for her personal appearance, as long as she is being represented by her counsel, except on the dates when her personal appearance is required by the Court including re-conciliation, subject to payment of traveling and other incidental expenses to the petitioner and the person accompanies her, by the respondent whenever she attends the Court in connection with the above OP.

¶12

The second ground urged by the petitioner before this Court is that DVC No.28 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Eluru, West Godavari, is pending within the jurisdiction of Eluru, West Godavari District and prayed to withdraw FCOP No.921 of 2017 and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Eluru, West Godavari. However, pendency of DVC No.28 of 2014 within the jurisdiction of Eluru, West Godavari District, is not a ground to transfer FCOP No.921 of 2017 as the DVC is being tried by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, whereas, FCOP No.921 of 2017 by Judge, Family Court, following procedure under Family Court Act and therefore, it cannot be withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Eluru, West Godavari.

¶13

The last ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is facing life threat in the hands of the respondent whenever she attends the Court in connection with FCOP No.921 of 2017 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The ground raised by the petitioner is not based on any material.

¶14

¶15

Therefore, on the ground of threat to her life in the hands of the respondent, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be diverted, since it is not based on any material. In the event of occurrence of any such untoward incident whenever she attends the Court in connection with the said OP, she may report with the police having jurisdiction over the area where the incident occurred or to the Presiding Officer of the Court. If any complaint is made by the petitioner in writing apprehending threat from the respondent, the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, is directed to provide necessary Police protection to this Petitioner whenever she attends the Court in connection with the said FCOP No.921 of 2017, subject to bearing necessary expenses.

¶16

With the above direction, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous

¶17

Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶19

closed .

¶20

____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

¶21

Dt: 02-02-2018 eha

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶24

Tr . CI VI L MI SCELLEANEI OUS PETI TI ON No.4 5 of 2 0 1 8

¶25

eha

¶26

Dt . 0 2 .0 2 .2 0 1 8

Mutte Spandana v. Mutte Jyothandranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mutte Spandana v. Mutte Jyothandranath

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

Nyalakonda Pushpalatha, Karimnagar Dist Vs Bheemanthumi Sudhakar, Karimnagar and Anr.

Dasari Srinivasa Rao Vs Dasari Sara , Rajayamma (Died) and 2 Others

Chebrolu srikanth Vs Chebrolu madhavi

V Raja Reddy, Mancherial Vs Miskina Bee, Mancherial and 2 Others

Shujauddin Ahmed Jeddy Vs Arifuddin Ahmed Jeddy

Ravikrindi Kota Satya Lakshmi Kanthi/Kanthi Vs Ravikrindi Pavan Venkata Pradeep Kiran Kumar/ R. Kiran Kumar