Allowed

Dasari Sowjanya v. Dasari Sampath

Telangana HC14 Sept 2022TRCMP/176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC. The petitioner sought to withdraw a Hindu Marriage Oppression case from Godavarikhani and transfer it to the Family Court at Medchal. The court considered the wife's convenience, her residence with parents, and the minor child's schooling.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of HMOP No. 56 of 2022 from Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, and transfer to Additional District Judge, Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Dasari Sowjanya Vs Dasari Sampath — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAEAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRES E NT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶7

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 176 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Sowjanya, W/o. Dasari Sampath D/o. Thalapati Jayanna, R/o D N0 302, Gurukula Elite, Chandra Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND Dasari Sampath, Sio. Lingaiah. R/o. H.No 11-1-20411 , Alluru Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. ...RESPONDENT

¶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 HMOP No. 56 of 2022,^pending on the flle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District. to the Court of Il Additional District JudgeFamily court, at fvledchal, N4edchal-[4alkajgiri District.

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 HNIOP No. 56 of^.2022, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District,^{pendingdisposalof} Tr.CMP.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Petition and^the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri. T.} RAMCHANDER RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri. N. BHUJANGA^RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'I LE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESH\V \ i:'r ill)DDY

¶17

Tr.C.M.P.No. 1 76 of 2022

¶18

ORDDIT:

¶19

The p: :til.icner/ u,rlb has filed this.^'l-'r.:r sfer Civil Miscellzrneot s I)etitior-r under Section .lr.i r' th : Civil Procedure⁽ ode 1908 (for short 'CPC') rvith ir prir\ er to rvithdrar,,,H:'lOP No.56 of 2022 pending^(,n rrl,t lic of the le arne<l Ser ior Civil Judge, Godavankl rerrr,. .:'c'cltlapalli District and to transfer the same to the lr'i r:-,'cl .ludge, Famih, Cour , Mr:dchal-Malkajgiri District;Lt lv4cl< hal

¶20

Notice ;t:rved on the respr.,nden t / husb:ur d. I lt'rrrd the le;rrnt:cl <:our. sr:l on both srdes. The submissi,,r r; nr , cle on cither side I ave received due consideration o' rl is tlourt Perused the nat<:rial availabie on record

¶21

The pt titioner/ivife has filed this^{'lr ()l/} !) rr ith a prayer for w tl-rdrawal of HMOP NO.56 f 2022 Pcndi:.rg on the file of tb : Senior Civil Judge at Godavarikha rr ;nd to transfer the ;ame to the Jr-rdge, Family Court rrt i\4: dchal alleging tha hr:r marriage u,ith the resltorrclent rvas solemnized o r 31.O5.20 13. after their marriage^,i rc'^joined

¶22

-.....-...-r-

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

the company of the respondent and they left to United States of America and leacl mat|irrtoltial life. Later, she noticed ch anges in the altitude of her husband, he r,r'as harassing her and on 16.11.201.6 she was blessed with a girl child. Thereafter, the respondent increased the harassment alleging that she has illicit intimacy with an Americar citizen ar-rd fir-raily on 07 .I2.2O2O the respondent took her back to India as her fathcr was sick. When they landed in the Airport, the-v u,ere received by her brother-inlaw and co-sister and others ar-rd when she enquired about health condition of her father, they did not respond. That due to the unbearable harassment in the hands of family members of the respondent, she consumed poison; she was admitted in the hospital and finaliy she gave a report before the police at Jeedimetla on 12.03.2022. Basing on which, a case in Crime No.540 of 2022 is Iiled and^pending on the lile of the XXI Additional Metropolital Magistrate, Medchal, now she along with her minof child is residing with her parents at Chandranagar, Chintal, Hyderabad. She got admitted her child in Oakridge Internationa-l School, Bachupally in first class. In the meanwhile,^the

¶25

Page 3 of 8

¶26

re slronclent has filed OP No.56 ol 2022 s(reki'rI Jirr,i-ce b1 dissrl.. lrg I rr' :narriage ',r'ith all false tilleg Ltir ns I1 is caus:rr(: lot -.r l- itrconvenience for her lo c( ml t ,: ll⁽ rn lter place of rer iclence to the court at Godavali.< r: rri ..,r'er a

¶27

drstiLnce of 2-10 k.m. on each and every dat,r c)f l,rarlng, accordingl-, lraJ'ed to allou, TT.CMP b-v $'ithdr a,'. n'l HI'lOP 5o.s6 rrf 2t 22 from the file of the Ser:ior^(li' il ,lucige, GodrLvarikhi,ni and trar-rsferring the samc t,., :re ,Juclge. Farnih' Cour ,:rt Medchal.

¶28

The le: uned counsel for the respondr:rrr,'hrrsband seeks to su )mi1 that there ..'as a comprornls;,: p|,)po\al betr.r'een the pari-ies and in fact it rvas agreed {-;r' 1,'iL;mr:nt of Rs. I 8,25, 00Ct/ - in instalments and 1I t sir r..rc is mcntioned h pa:a-7 of HMOP No.56 of 20'22 ,ll't<' tiLet the respondent I as paid the said amount as inclic,rt -: cl .n the said para. liince the petitioner is not '"r,illinF tr) jcrin the conjr,rgai sor iety of the respondent and she 1.ri; also receive<l an €r rrorLnt of Rs. 18,25,000/-, it is not p:'ssi['1e 1or the parties t,: colrtinue their matrimonial r elatir,:-a sllrl) and pr.$'ed for di,, n-rissa-l of TT.CMP

¶29

Page 4 of 3

¶30

,i\ lt.I 1r . Cit.lP No.I76 oi l0ll

¶31

On a careful perusal of the cntirc matcrial available on record, the relationship bet['een the parties rs not in dispute and it is equally' not in dispute that out of the wedlock, they w'ere biessed u'ith the female child and norv she is agrd about six years. Hon'c'u'er, the case of the petitioner / u,ife is that she got he r minor child admitted in Oakridge International School at Bacl-ruparll]'. It is causing 1ot ol inconvenicnce for her to commute lrom Hyderabad to Gociavarikhani o.er a dislance ol 500 l<.m. on each and every date of hearing leaving her minor child r.r,ith her parents. The petitioner is a house ri ife , she is under the protective umbrella of her parcr-rts.

¶32

Though it is mentioncd irr para-7 of the HMOP No.56 of 2022 that the husband has paid an amount of Rs.18,25,000/- in terms of compromise, the learned counsel for the petitioner hereir-r/rvife has stated that payment of such amount etc., is not the subject matter for consideration in TT.CMP and they are required to be considered only in the divorce OP liled by the husband and urged that considering the convenience of the wife and

¶33

l,age 5 of 8

¶34

IJ(','\ Iir ,.lr

¶35

mirror clrild, I tNlOP No.56 of 2022 pendins^(,11 tr( il('^(,1'tlrc Sen^jor- Civil .. urlge, Godavarikhani mav be witirrlr rs and translerred tt) the Judge, Famil1' Court at M,.'dr:l L,L

¶36

I,-r N.C.'i . Aishwarya u. A.S. Sarauona Xcr-jirik Sha)

¶37

tht' Apex Cot rr rvhile dealing '"r,ith the sin-rilal li ct s, heid that rh(' app cant/rvife u,ho is young lady agr ci ; Lrorrt 21 1'erus^{st:l irr1 :rlone along with her agedpzLr,rn L. rL is} diltlcult for h, r to travel all the way lrom Chenn:. I I ,rllore to arttenrl th( court proceedings of the case lilt.,.l l. the respondent,lLr ,rsbend seeking annulment rt1 r'rat liagcaccordirlgh'. c0nsidering the convenienc(i ol rhe $,ife transierred tr e nratter from the Family Cr)ur'1 . v'cll()re 1.o tl'rt -juris;clictir nai Family Court at Chetrnai.

¶38

Thr: Ap :r Court further held thar- tlrr ca-clinal principle for t'xr:rc,ise of power under Section 24 t'l' C.l'} C. is thert encls olj tsti<:e should demand the tran sfer oi tl-rc suit, appeal or otl er proceedings and in matrirnorr al disputc:s r,r'hcnr:vcl cor rts are called upon to consi,lel t.t l;l:a of transfe r. the courts have to take into consicler.rtiorr the

¶39

-r -l l.r i., ii- '

¶40

Page 6 oF 8

¶41

social strata of the spouses, their behavioural pattem, Lheir standard of life prior to marriage and subseqtlcnt thereto and circumstances under ri'hich both tl-re partres are eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance and tl-rat given the prevaiiing socio economic paradigm in the Indian society generally it is the r,l,ife's convenience u'hich must be looked into at while considering the tralsfer application

¶42

In the instant case, except makirrg allegation that the relations are strained betu'een the parties and that as per the mutuai understanding, the responde rrt/ husband has paid Rs.lg,25,OOO l- to the petitro r-r er/ u'ife towards full and final settlement of her claim, no other allegations are made against her. Be it stated that as pcr Section 19 (iii)(a) ol the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides wife is entitled to prosecute the matrimonial disputes before the jurisdictional court where she is presently Jiving.

¶43

Undisputedly, she is living withir-r the limits of Family Court at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, she is living under the protective umbrella of her parents along with her

¶44

Page 7 of 8

¶45

inlno^,.'iril(l u,ti she also got her minor c-rill i l'rli cd in (.)rLl:r',ir. irrt r rational School. Bachupaii,". I-!r11'1;,,.,;11. It is :rr, rl r:- ;r ,r'1hc respondcltt that eith,r i t, . ,.1 r)lrcr' 1S q,r,rlitli'.^('rnplo]'ecl or that he har; 1,::r -!\ rr.rg mrlinl(ll:ince tr, her or his minor daughter

¶46

1 I . In rhat ",icg' of the matter, considering the p rir r:iples laid l:r^'-1rc A1 ex^(lourt in the above decisiorr, schr:ine of the FIii-rdu lullLn i:r lr Act and convenience of the wifr' eLrrd rnin<tr child, I 1'jncl . Lrstilication in the request of thr' ,)(:rj':i(,ner/ r,i iie Io: rr ithc^'asal of HMOP No.56 of 2022 perdi,g^(, 1 the fiic oi'thc' Sr:r.r oi' Oivil .ludge at Godavarikhani.

¶47

In tlre rr suit, the Transfer Civil Miscellerne()rrs l)clition is irilorverl. H "'lot' No.56 of 2022 pending on the [ilr: r[ the lealnccl Seni^,r Oivil Judge, GodavarikheLni,^rcdd:palli District.. is orr eretl to be u,ithdrar,r,n and transfcrrerd tr, the filc ol the lear rod Judge, Family Court, Medchai \4 rlkiggiri Distrir:t art N{t Cchal, for disposal in accord,rncr' 'r'ith lau'. Thc- le arncd Senior Civil Judge, Godavirrikir ar i sl.rall transnrit the^, ntire record in HMOP No.56 ol 20 22 lulr' indexe d, ri itl-ri r one month from the date of re<;r'ipt of r:op,r,

¶48

PdSe 8 of 8

¶49

<sup>i.i.l

¶50

ol this order. Hou,ever, in the circumstances of the casc.

¶51

thcre shail be no order as to costs

¶52

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any per-rding

¶53

in this TT.CMP shall stand closed.

¶54

ASSISTAN??.Sfl+|'AT* //TRUE COPY// @

¶55

SECTIOiI OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

¶58

The Court of ll Additional District Judge-Family Court, at lVledchal. Iriledchal-lvlalkajgiri Dishict,

¶59

The Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶60

One CC to SRI T. RAMCHANDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

a eTuo cD <opie)

"B^cHK

I : ; i i i

HIGH COURT

DATED: l4i}tti '.C7-2

¶67

ORDER

¶68

TRCMP.No.17t' of 2022

¶69

A(i;. '-' " orc' N
,;o
it\li ?\??
o t J
L
r)
k

ALLOWING TIIE'TR.CMP

WITHOUTCO i']'S;

@"uq,rtr,

I I

Dasari Sowjanya v. Dasari Sampath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Sowjanya v. Dasari Sampath

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

Smt. Kokkonda Balamani Vs Akiredygari Ram Reddy

Sri. Y.v.Murali Krishna Vs Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd.

Katakam Prashanth Vs Rayagiri Narsimulu

Smt.Lagisetti Dhanasri Urmila Vs Sangepu Ravikiran

Smt.Balne , Ankam Sowmya Vs Balne Rameshbabu

Mellacheruvu Rajeswara Rao, Vs Tellam Narasimha Rao and another