Allowed

Smt. Janga Manasa Priyanka v. Mr. Janga Karunakar Reddy

Telangana HC2 Dec 2021TRCMP/56/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC to shift a maintenance dispute from Bodhan, Nizamabad to Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The court held that the wife's convenience and that of her minor child prevail, rejecting unproven allegations of threat against the husband.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No. 10 of 2020 withdrawn from Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, and transferred to the Additional Family Court at Kukatpally.

Smt. Janga Manasa Priyanka Vs Mr. Janga Karunakar… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEA.VENKATESHWARA REDDY}

¶5

Tr.cI4t.tlsl9-e!2!21

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Janga Manasa^{Priyanka,W/o Janga.Ka!q!ak?!Reddy-Ag-ed} SpouJ.S! piivaie rniptovee Fl/o Flat No.601 , H No l-57, Challa's Nest ""rir.--OEJ, Apartments Madinaguda,^{Miy-apur,Serilingampally Hyderabad'}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Mr. Janga Karunakar Reddy,^{S/o Sri. VemaReddy,aged about 3] years} Occupaiion . Private Employee^{PermanentResidentof Prakash Rao Camp} Birkui (Village and Mandal),^{Kamareddy, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶11

..,RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C.^{Praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High courtmay be pleased to withdraw the} H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2O2O and transfer the^{H.M.O.PNo 10 of 2O2O'fromthe court of} Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan Nizamabad^{Districtto the Court of Hon'ble XV} Additional District Judge-cum-llAdditional^{Family Court Judge at Kukapally.}

¶13

IANO:1OF2

¶14

¶15

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 of all} further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.10 ot 2020 on the file of^{the courtof Hon'ble} Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad District^pending disposal of^{the main} Transfer petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Petition and^the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri Srinivas} Somasi, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate^{for the} Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY Tr.CMP.No.5 6 of 2O2l

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner-wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of C.P.C seeking withdrawal of HM.Op.No.lO/2O2O pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan and to transfer the same to the Family Court at Kukatpally.

¶21

The petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was performed on 08.03.2014. They led happy life for sometime and therea-fter disputes arose between them. Out of their wedlock, the petitioner begot a male child. After delivery, she went to her parents house. Thereafter, the respondent left for USA. She has waited for sometime, there was no response from the respondent, accordingly, she has filed a Criminal case in Crime No.982l2ol8 wherein the police have filed charge sheet vide CC.No.5O55/2018, pending on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Now, she along u,ith her minor child are depending on her old aged parents. Later, the respondent has filed HM.OP.No.1O of 2O2O on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, which is at a distance of nearly 27O K.Ms. from Hyderabad, and it is difficult for the petitioner and her minor child to travel from Hyderabad to Bodhan. Accordingly, requested for transfer.

¶22

The respondent had filed detailed counter alleging that a false case is foisted against him and his family members for harassment of dowry. He is apprehending danger in the hands of

¶23

¶24

parents of the petitioner. Even at the time of reconciliation in HM.OP.No,10l2020, the petitioner herein has clearly stated that she does not u,ant to say an-vthing. There are no merits in the transfer CMP. There is threat to the life of respondent, if the matter is transferred from Bodhan to Kukatpally Court as his father-in-law (father of the petitioner) made attempts to cause physical harm by hiring 'gundas,, accordingly requested for dismissal of the application.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as wife and husband is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-husband has filed HM.Op.No.l0 /2O2O on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, whereas, the petitioner-wife has filed a case in C.C.No.5O5S/201g for the offences under Section 498 A IpC against the respondent and his family members. It is not the case of the respondent that either he is paying maintenance to his wile and minor child or that his wife is gainfuily employed and is able to maintain herself and their minor child.

¶27

Learned Counsel for respondent seeks to submit that there is a threat perception and that if the matter is transferred from Bodhan to Kukatpally, there is every possibility of petitioner,s father hiring gundas and causing physical harm to the respondent, which is strenuously denied by the petitioner. The respondent has not filed any piece of paper to show that on earlier occasions u'hen the respondent came to Kukatpallv courts

¶28

¶29

! I

¶30

for attending criminal case in C.C.No.SOSS /2OIg, he is either threatened or that the petitioner,s father has abused him.

¶31

The Honourable Supreme court in similar circumstances in Sangeetha Atlas Shrega u, prasant Vijag Wargigat held that we are still living in a civilized society. We see no substance in the submission that there would be danger to his life if the respondent has to attend the Court. If any threat is given, the respondent can always complain to the court and we are sure that his complaint if one made will be considered on its merits. Between husband and wife the convenience of wife must prevail particularly when the wife has 2 yz year old child.

¶32

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal pardeshi 2 while dealing with transfer proceedings of a matrimonial dispute, held that in this type of matters, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶33

In such circumstances, as the husband having alleged threat perception, failed to establish the same and the petitionerwife is living with her minor child with her parents, I see no substances in the allegations leveled against the petitioner or her father. Therefore, considering the convenience of petitioner and her minor child and in view of principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decisions, I deem it fit to accept the request of the petitioner. However, if any threat is

¶34

'^zooa(r:) scc ra

¶35

'(zoos) t2 scc z:z

given, the respondent may complain either to the Court or before the police concerned and I am sure that any such complaint il made will be considered on its merits.

¶40

In the result, the TT.CMP is allowed, HM.OP.No. lO/2O2O, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad District, is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Additional Family Court at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, sha,ll transmit the entire record duly indexed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending if

¶42

any, shall stand disposed of

¶43

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G, SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45