Allowed

P.Aswini Tejaswi v. Mr.P.Vivek Raju

Telangana HC24 Sept 2018TRCRLP/83/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer criminal petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer M.C.No.5 of 2017 from Family Court, Secunderabad. The petition was based on the inability of the autistic second petitioner to appear in court and her ongoing treatment needs, applying apex court precedents.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.5 of 2017 withdrawn from Family Court, Secunderabad and transferred to Family Court at Visakhapatnam for decision.

P.Aswini Tejaswi Vs Mr.P.Vivek Raju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

TR. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.83 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to withdraw M.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad and transfer the same to Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

¶5

The first petitioner and first respondent wife and husband and the second petitioner is their daughter, who is stated to be suffering from a developmental disorder that affects communication and behaviour (Autism Spectrum Disorder). The first respondent left to Chennai leaving both the petitioners at Hyderabad on work contract. The first petitioner is taking care of her daughter i.e. second petitioner who was diagnosed with the above said disease and staying and Hyderabad. Further, the first respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.457 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad, seeking decree of divorce, subsequently, the same was transferred to the Family Court at Visakhapatnam and the first petitioner also filed M.C.No.5 of 2017 before the Family Court, Secunderabad, for grant of maintenance.

¶6

Notice was ordered by this Court earlier on 05.07.2018 and Sri V. Balram though appeared on behalf of the first respondent, did not advance his arguments.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to transfer M.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad to the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, as F.C.O.P.No.457 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad was transferred to the Family

¶8

MSM,J Tr.CrlP_83_2018

¶9

¶10

Court at Visakhapatnam, as the second petitioner is not in a position to appear before the Court on every date of adjournment and that she is undergoing treatment.

¶11

Therefore, by accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and by applying the principles laid by the Apex

¶12

Court in T. Gayatri Devi v. Dr. Tallepaneni Srikanth¹ and Amita shah v. Virender Lal Shah² , to the present facts of the case, this criminal petition is allowed and M.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad is withdrawn and the same is transferred to Family Court at Visakhapatnam. Further, on transfer, the Family Court at Visakhapatnam shall decide the petition in accordance with law.

¶13

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

¶15

shall also stand closed. No costs.

¶16

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Date: 24.09.2018 SP

¶18

1 2013 (6) ALT 42 (SC)

¶19

2 (2003) 10 SCC 609

P.Aswini Tejaswi v. Mr.P.Vivek Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Aswini Tejaswi v. Mr.P.Vivek Raju

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

Gulam Ibrahim Rasheed , Ibraheem Rasheed, Vs The State of Telangana.

Koneru Dhana Koteswara Rao Vs Vemulapalli Kishna Mohan

M.R.Rajender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Vootukturu Venugopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gaurav Bansal Vs the State of Telangana

Govind Bansal Vs State of Telangana