Allowed

Denchanala Uma Devi v. Denchanala Hari Prasad

Telangana HC6 Dec 2021TRCMP/144/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy allowed the transfer of High Court Miscellaneous Civil Petition No. 71 of 2019 from Kothagudem to Miryalaguda. The court prioritized the wife's convenience and the well-being of her minor child over the husband's convenience, noting the wife's established residence and sole custody.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of M.O.P. No. 71 of 2019 from Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, to Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

Denchanala Uma Devi Vs Denchanala Hari Prasad — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

TR.C.M.P. NO: 144 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Denchanala Uma Devi, Wo. Hari Prasad,

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Denchanala Hari Prasad, S/o. Anandha Chary,

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition Under Section 24 ol the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the M.O.P.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem to the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 stay all further proceedings in M.O.P.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, pending disposal of the above case.

¶15

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/s. Padala Pravin Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE HOIVBLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. VENKATESHWARAREDDY} Tr. CMP N o. 111 of²⁰²¹

¶19

¶20

l.Thepettioner/wifehasfiledthisTransf.er(]ivilMiscellaneous petition under i ,ection 24 of the civil Procedure Code seeking^{rr ithdrau al} ofHMoPNo.ilof20lgpendingonthefrleofthePrincipalSeniorCivil Judge. Kothagt^{demand to transferthe same to the Senior Civil judge's} Court, Miryalal^{uda, Nalgonda District.}

¶21

2.Theclairrofthepetitioneristhatsheisthelegalll'*'eddedu'if'eof the respondent^{Lnd their marriage was solemnized on 24'05'2014as per the} prevailing custr ms in their community.^{They lead happy marital lil'e lbr} some time 3nd^rut of^{wedlock, they were blessed with a male childLater'} the respondent taIled demanding^{additional dowry' neglected her, he used} to come to the t cuse in drunken^{oondition,and finall.v he resignedhis job in} Pune and shifte,^ito Hyderabad.^{Later, he has neckedherout ofhis housein} January, 2017,^{whereby she is compelledto stay-at her parents house at} Miryalaguda.]lehasfiledHMoPNo.Tlol20lgbelbretheSeniorCivil Judge's Court.^{).othagudem.It is causingverydilficrrltfor lhe pctitioner to} attend on each^{tncl everydate of hearing along rvith her Ininor child' rvho} has aged about^{six years and hence requested for transttr of the llMOl']} NO.71 of 20i9^{iomKothagudemto Miryalaguda'}

¶22

The lean ed counsel^{for the respondenVhusbandseeks to submit thal} the petitioner i;^{residing at Vanasthalipuram,Hyderahad and she is not} living at Mirya^{aguda, NalgondaDistrict and if the matter is transferredto}

¶23

¶24

Ranga Redd1, I)istrict. the respondent has no ob.iection. Accordingly. the learned counsel has filed a photocopy of summons serv'ed on the petitioner.

¶25

In the said sumrnons. it is r-nentioned that when notice w,as sent at Miryaguda address. ra,hich was retumed with an endorsement 'the person rvith that name is not available at the given address. Again, when summons were sent at Vanasthalipuram address also. the same were retumed u,ith the endorsement by the baililfto that effect as'the notice could not be served at the given address at Vanasthalipuram'. Thus. the contention of the respondent that the petitioner 1S livirig at Vanasthalipuram is not substantiated rvith any material

¶26

The admitted facts ol the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. They lead happy married life for some time. Out of wedlock, they were blessed r.r.ith a male child, who has aged about six years and living with the petitioner only. It is not the case of the respondent that he has been paying maintenance or looking after the wellare ol the minor son. In fact, it is the petitioner who has been looking after the welfare and the maintenance of her minor son and she has been living w-ith her parents at Miryalaguda. In such circumstances, it will cause much hardship to the petitioner if she is directed to attend the Kothagudem Court on each and every date ofhearing.

¶27

lt is the case of the respondent that though he has filed HMOp, he is living at Hyderabad and if the matter is transferred to Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. he has no difficulty. The distance between L.B.Nagar to Mirl'alaguda and Kothagudern to Miryalaguda is almost one and the same.

¶28

¶29

l'he I'lon'l le^{SupremeCouft ol Indiain Raiani Kishor Pordcshiv'} Kishor Babulat^{p rdeshit whileilealingwith thetranst-er proceedings ot'} matrimonial dispt^{te heldthat in this type of matters' the convcnietrceof thc} wif'e is to be^{preftrred over the convenienceofthehusband'}

¶30

In such cir )umstances,^{the convenienceof the wife andminor child} has to be^{givenlreferenceover the convenienceol the husband Thc} respondent/husba^{rd has failed to substantiate the claim that thc petitioner is} living at Vanasthi^{lipuram. Therefore, I am inclined to accepttherecluest of'} the petitioner.

¶31

In the rest lt. the^{TranslerCivilMiscellaneousPetition is allowed} and HMOP No.7 of^{2019 pending on the file of the I'rincipalSenior Civil} Judge,sCourt.K.thagudem,isorderedrobewithdrarvnandtranst.eredlo the Senior civil^{ludge'scourt at Miryalaguda. Nalgonda [)istrict. 'Ihe} leamedPrl.SenirrCivilJudge.sCourt,Kothaguderrr.shalltransmitthc entire record dull^{indexed withinone month from the dateol'receipt ol a} copy of this order^{No orderas to costs'}

¶32

i0. Miscellane^{rus applications,if anypending in this transfer petition}

¶33

¶34

shall stand^closed F -12005)12S CC²³⁷

¶35

¶36

srli -B.SATYAVATHI ASSISIANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY' lt "' SECTION^OFFICER .'''

¶37

i s,i?^{tr #r frtr#t*ffi ,ilr'"1q,i!*;'} a Two CD^CoPies 6. One SPare^CoPl Kj \ v

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212021

ORDER

TRCMP.No.144^{ot 2021}

¶42

,rgrt:*
,---'-a- HE sri.

¶43

ALLOWED
><br>\l

Denchanala Uma Devi v. Denchanala Hari Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Denchanala Uma Devi v. Denchanala Hari Prasad

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

Gajula Sirisha Vs Gajula Indira Devi

M/s Agi glaspac Vs M/s. Balaji Paper Mart

Smt. Salvadi Sandhya Rani Vs Salvadi Sunil Kumar

Rachuri Ramesh Babu Vs a.Praveen Kumar

Maheshwari Vs Sayani Venkatamma , Vankammo

Kamatam Kiranmai Jyothi, Karimnagar Dist Vs Kamatam Venkateswarlu, Khammam Dist