Dismissed

Smt.Maggidi Vaishanavi , Sujatha v. Smt.Maggidi Dheelip , Babu

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020TRCMP/28/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to move her divorce case from Nizamabad to Nirmal Family Court. The court rejected the claim of health restrictions due to lack of medical proof and noted that inconvenience alone does not justify transfer without merit.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Divorce O.P.No. 64 of 2019 from Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad to Family Court, Nirmal was refused.

Smt.Maggidi Vaishanavi , Sujatha Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 28 AF 2 020

¶6

Between

¶7

Smt. lVaggidi Vaishanavi @ Sujatha, W/o lr/aggidi Dheelip @ Babu, Aged about 30 years, R/o H.No.3-28, Kothapet (Patha Yellapur) Khanapur l/andal, Nirmal District (Adilabad)

¶8

...PETTTTONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt.lt/aggidi Dheelip @ Babu, S/o lt/aggidi Poshetty, aged about 31 years, Occ Pvt. Job, R/o H.No. 5-59, tr/anikbhandar Village, lt/akloor l,4andal, Nizamabad District.

¶11

,RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the Divorce O.P,No. 64 o'f 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge Nizmabad filed by the respondent herein to the Hon'ble Family Court, at Nirmal

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^grant stay of all further proceedings, including appearance of the^petitioner in Divorce O.P.No.64 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge Nizmabad,^pending disposal of the Tr.Cl/P.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S SURENDRA KUMAR

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON,BLE DT. ]USTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Transfer Civi I Miscellaneous Petition^N o.28 ol^2O2O

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This transfer civil miscellaneous^petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the^petitioner/ wife requestlng to withdraw Divorce O.P.No.64 of 2019 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Nirmal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and perused the record.

¶22

In spite oF service oF notice, tl'rere is no representation for the respondent/husband.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the petitioner/wiFe is suffering from severe stomach pain, due to which she is unable to work and travel long distances. A criminal case is registered against the respondent/husband and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 7967 vide Crime No.163 of 20t7 of Khanapur Police Station, Nirmal, and the same is pending. The petitioner/wife also filed D.V.C.No.14 of 2018 before the Additional ludicial First Class lvlagistrate, Nirmal, seeking maintenance. The distance between Nirmal and Nizamabad ls around 70 kilometres. It will be difficult for her to travel around 70 kilometres from Nirmal to Nizamaba-d'to defend her case and ultimately prayed to withdraw the subject O.P. from the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

¶24

Nizamabad and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Nirmal, which is convenient to her.

¶25

It is apt and appropriate to refer the decision in Chejerla Srilakshmi Vs. Chejerla Ramesh Babu1, wherein the erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, relying on various decisions of the Hon,ble Apex Court, held as under:

¶26

"The Apex Court took note of inconvenience being caused to the parties but not the inconvenience to the wife alone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case adverting to the earlier judgment rendered in^,'Ram Gulam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad" and "Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh" (as referred in the judgment) and opined that all the authorities are based on the facts of the respective cases and they do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent. Thereafter, it noted that taking advantage of the leniency shown to the ladies by this Court, number of transfer petitions are filed by women and, therefore, it is required to consider each petition on merit. Then, the Court dwell upon the fact situation and directed that the husband shall pay all travel and stay expenses to the wife and her companion for each and every occasion whenever she was required to attend the Court. From the aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that the Court felt that the transfer petitions are to be considered on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine manner."

¶27

In the instant case, the^{grounds putforth} by^the petitioner/wife for the transfer of Divorce O.P.No.64 of 2019 filed by the respondent/husband is that she^is suffering from^severe

¶28

'^{20I 8 (4) At,D 162}

¶29

¶30

stomach^pain and^{she is unable to work and travellong} distances^{and that it is inconvenientfor her to travel from Nirmal} to Nizamabad to^{attend the proceedlngsin the Courtat} Nizamabad,Whiledealingwithsimilarsituations,thisCourtand the Hon'ble^{Apex Court were of the opinion that in a petition to} transfer a case from^{one Court to anotherCourt under the} provisions of Hindu Marriage^{Act, 1955, it is the inconvenience of} both the^parties that^{is to be takenlnto consideration,but not} the inconvenience to the wife alone^{and that transfer petitions} are to be considered on their own^{merits and not to be disposed} of in a routine manner. In the instant^{case,thoughthe} pet]tioner/wlfe has contended that she has been suffering with stomach ache, except her self-serving statement, there is no single certificate issued by the competent Doctor to substantiate the same. Therefore, it cannot be held that the^{petitioner/wife} has been suffering from stomach ache and such stomach ache is obstacle to her in attending the Divorce O.P before the Senior Civil^judge's Court at Nizamabad. Normally this Court is inclined to allow the applications oF this nature, where there are genuine reasons/circumstances to transFer the case from one Court to another. As far as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are concerned, this Court is of the view that no much hardship would be caused to the petitioner/wife and the circumstances of the case do not justify the relief sought by the petitioner/wife in this petition. Under these circumstances, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.