Allowed

Middela Pujitha v. Akkinapally Kiran Kumar

Telangana HC10 Dec 2021TRCMP/184/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a family court petition for dissolution of marriage from Khammam to Nalgonda. The transfer was ordered to consolidate proceedings where the wife had filed restitution of conjugal rights and other suits, prioritizing her convenience and apprehension of bias.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of FCOP No. 20 of 2021 from Family Court at Khammam to Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda.

Middela Pujitha Vs Akkinapally Kiran Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY TRANSFER C IVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO: 'l84OF 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

l\iliddela Pujitha, D/o. tr/.Saidulu, W/o. Akkinapatly Kiran, age- 25 years. R/o, H.No. 6-9-4812, Vivekanada Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District- 508001

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

'1 . Akkinapally Kiran Kumar, S/o. Venkanna, Age- 28 years, Occ- Employee, R/o. H.No. 15-16-117, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam town and District.

¶10

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶11

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 FCOP No. 20 o't 2021 on the file of the Family Court at Khammam, to be tried along with OP No. 71 or 2020, on the file of the Judge, Family Court -cum- Vl Additional District Judge at Nalgonda.

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶13

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 FCOP No. 20 ol 2021, on the file of the Family Court at Khammam.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. T. L. KRISHNA PRASAD

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : LAIQ PASHA SHAIK

¶16

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BL^{i SRI JUSTICEA. VENKATESHWARA'REDDY} TT.CMP No.l84^of202l

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

l.Thepetit,oner/wifehasfiledthisTransfer'CivilMiscellaneous Petition under^{S ection 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for withdrawal} of FCOP No.2 ) of^{2021 pending on the file of the Judge' Family} Court at Kharrmam^{and to transferthe same to the Judge, Family} Court at Nalgorda^{to be tried along with OP No Tl o1'202()pending} on the flle of th^{rt Coutt.}

¶21

The peti ioner is^{the legallyrvedded wif'e o1'respondent'Iheir} marriagewasJertbrmedonl3.08.2020..theyleadhappynraritallit.e for some tim:.^{Thereafter, the respondentdeveloped indifferent} attitude towar( s the^{petitionerand also developed contactswith other} women. He i: working^{as Junior Assistant in a Court in the District} CourtComplel,Khammam.Whenshehasquestionedhisattitude,she was driven avr ty from^{his house.Thereafter,she filed a case in Crime} No.98 of 202r^, before^{the Women Police Station at Nalgondafor the} offence u/s.49 3 IPC^{and as a counter blast, the respondent has filed a} case in Crime No.522 of^{2020 u/s.417 and 506 II)C betbre the police} at Khammarr. She has^{frledOP No.7l of 2010 lbr restitutionol} conjugal righ s on the flle of^{the Judge, Family Courtat Nalgonda'} She also filec MC No.l8 ol^{2020. which is pendingon thc tlle ol'the} Judicial First Class^{Magistrareat Nalgonda.[.ater. the respondertt has} filed FCOP No.20 of 202 I^{befbrethe Judge, FarnilyCourtat} Khammam 'vith all false^{allegations seeking dissolutionol the}

¶22

)

¶23

Tr CMI'No 184 (,t 20?l

¶24

marriage. Thus, it is requested by the petitioner for transfer of FCOp No.20 ol 2021 ftled, by her husband fiom the Judge, Family Court at Khammam to the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, wherein Op No.71 of 2020 filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights is pending.

¶25

The respondent vehemently contested the matter and filed a detailed counter denying the petition averrnents stating that on the conrplaint lodged by the petitioner, departrnental enquiry is initiated against hirn. vide D.E.No.2 ol 202 I and the Superintendent of police, Nalgonda also reqLrested to initiate sorne action against him. He has llled an OP befbre the Family Cour-t at Khamrnam fbr dissolution of rnariage and a crinrinal case is also liled by him. He has to look afler his old aged parents. In f-act, he has come to know that marriage of the petitioner with him was performed against her wishes by her parents and it is very expensive for him to attend the Court at Nalgonda. In fact, the petitioner is getting Rs.25,000/- per month salary, she is B. Pharmacy student. He is only working as Bench Clerk in Women Court at Khammam with rneagre salary. In support of his contentions, he relied on the principles laid in Smt. Kon mu Srsvanthi v. Kommu Ilotthul and Che.jcrla Srilakshmi v. Chejerlt Romesh Bobu: and requested lbr dismissal olthe ;rrescnt'l r.CMP.

¶26

Heald on borh sidcs.

¶27

1 orders of lhis Coun in TT.CMP No.2,19 ol20l9. dt.04.06.2020 ALD 162 M4)

¶28

-1

¶29

AVR.J li C,1P No¹⁸⁴ of202l

¶30

¶31

The undis ruted admitted^{facts afe that the petitioneris the} legally wedded vife of the^{respondent. They leadhappy maritallife} for some time. Ihereafter,^{the petitioner has fileda case in Crime} No.98 of 2020 r/s.498-A IPC before^{the Women Police Station at} Nalgonda, she tas also filed OP No.7l^{of 2020 u/s.9 ol Hindu} Marriage Act, l1 55 lor^{restitutionof conjugal rights and N4C No.58 ol} 2020 claiming maintenance from^{her husband.Whereas.the} respondent has I led a criminal caseⁱⁿ Crirne^{No.5llo1'102() against} the petitioner ani he has also tlled I'COP No.20 ol'l0lI^{on the llle of'} Family Court at Khammam tbr dissolution ol marriage.

¶32

It is the Lpprehension of the^{petitioner that the respondent is} working as Ju rior Assistant in the District Court^Complexat Khammam and hat the petitioner may not^{get fair justice. Further, she} has already fileJ a restitution of conjugal^{rights OP u/s.9 of Hindu} Marriage Act before the Family Court at^{Nalgonda. Sheis} unemployed w. )men having no other support and it^{causes lot of} hardship to her to commute on every date^{of hearingliom\algonda} to Khammam.

¶33

The learr ed counsel tbr the respondent/h^us band^{seeksto sltbnrit} that the petitior er need not attend the Court at Kharlmattr^{on each and} every date of hearing, her attendance may be dispensed^{rvith, the} respondent is p^'epared to bear the travelling expenses of^{the petitioner}

¶34

¶35

AVR.J Ir CMP No 184 ol 202l

¶36

as and when she attends the Family Court at Khamrram and accordingly, r'elied on the principles Iaid in the decisions cited supra.

¶37

¶38

I have carefully perused the principles laid in the above decisions. The facts of the present case are quite distinct and separate from the facts mentioned in the above decisions. In the case on hand. the petitioner has initially filed restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Judge,, Family Courl at Nalgonda. As per Section 19 (iiia) of Hindu Mar:riage Act, wife is entitled to file the matrimonial disputes at a place r.vherever she resides subject to the^jurisdiction of tl-re Courts

¶39

The Hon'ble Suprerne Court ol India r.vhile dealing r.vith the transf'er proceedirrgs ot nratrirnonial clisputes tn Rajani Kishor Pardeshi r,. Kishor Bohulol Pordcshi'' held that in this type of matters. the convenience ol the u,if-e is to be pref-erred over the convenience of the husband.

¶40

In the second decision relied on by the learned counsel fbr the respondent/husband, a single^judge of this Courl directed the Court at Visakhapatnam not to insist the personal appearance of the parlies on every date of hearing and that whenever the presence of the wife is required at Visakhapatnam, the respondent/husband u,as directed to bear the travelling expenses of the wile and her companions.

¶41

I l. But, in the case on hand, the respondent is.ludicial an ernployee rvorking in the District Courl Cornplex and he has already filed a

I (:ooi) r: scc tt:

I i

ilt :J

¶46

'li.CMP No.l84 ol202l

¶47

criminal case a ;ainst^{his wifeand others andthe FCOP No.20 of 2021} filed by him i ; pending on the frle of the Judge, Family Court at Khammam. 1 he petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that the respondent ma r meddle with the justice process at his level and she may not get f rir opportunity in representing the matter befbre the Court. Theref rre, considering the tacts of the present case, no such direction coulc be given to the Judge, Family Court at Khammam to dispense with t re attendance ofthe petitioner and to the respondent to bear the travel ling expenses as and when she attends the Court at Khammam. Fu ther, the respondent is attending other cases filed by the petitioner a Nalgonda and if the FCOP No.20 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court is transferred to Nalgonda, no prejudice wou d cause to him. Therefore, while relying on the principle laid b r the Hon'ble Supreme Coun of India in Rojmi Kishor Ptrdeshi's case (3'd supra), I deem it tit to accept the request of the petitioner.

¶48

Consider ng the convenience of the petitioner, scherne ol the Hindu Marriag r Act, as the wifb has also llled Maintenance Case, another crimin: lcase and restitution olconjugal rights case l;efbre the Courls at Nalg cnda and the husband has been attending all these cases, I am inr lined to withdraw FCOP pending on the f le of the Judge, Family lourt at Klammam and to transfer the sarne to the Judge, Family⁽ ourt at Nalgonda.

¶49

¶50

Ir CMP No llt4 of202l

¶51

¶52

In the result, llre Transf-er Civil Miscellaneous petition is I allowed. FCOP No.20 of 2021 pending on rhe file of the Judge, Family Court at Khammam is ordered to be withdrawn an transfened to the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda to be tried along with FCOp No.7l of 2020 pending on the file of that Court. The leamed Judge, Family Courl at Khammam shall transmit the entire record duly indexed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53