Allowed

Gattoju Haritha v. G.Sai Ram

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022TRCMP/177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a Family Court originating petition from Hyderabad to Karimnagar, allowing the petitioner's request as she resides in Karimnagar and faces inconvenience commuting to Hyderabad. The order was passed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of FCOP No. 1068 of 2021 from Family Court, Hyderabad to Family Court, Karimnagar, with instructions to transmit records within one month.

Gattoju Haritha Vs G.Sai Ram — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[3218 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MIS c.P ETITION NO:177 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gattoju Haritha, Wo.Sai Ram

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

G.Sai Ram, S/o.Ravinder Chary.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under section 24 ot lhe c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to withdraw the FC.oP.1068 ot 2021 on the file of court the Family court Judge, city civil Courts, Hyderabad and transfer to the Court of Jurlge, Family Court, Karimnagar.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S.RAVINDER REDDy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. J.MOHAN SINGH (NOT APPEARED)

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.177 0F 2022

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behall of the respondent.

¶20

This Transfer Civil Miscellaleous^petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code (for short^.CpC) by the petitioner/wife against her husband, the respondent herein with a prayer to withdraw FCOP No. 106 8 of 2O2l , pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and to transfer the same to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar for disposat in accordance with law. As per the proceedings dated 30.08.2A22 l,earned counsel on behalf of respondent requested for short time stating that efforts are on for settlement between the parties. However, today there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. On a query posed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not aware of any such proposals.

¶21

AVR.J Ti.CMP 171 2422

¶22

¶23

I I I

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record and averments of the supporting afii<iavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage was performed on 13.12.2018, they ied happy marital life for one month and thereafter problems arose, panchayats were also held in the month of May, 2Ol9 in the presence of elders, she was driven out of her matrimonial house, she is forced to file a criminal case in CC No.2261 of 2O2l for the offences under Sections 498-4, 323, 506 of IPC on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, she is staying with her parents and it is causing lot of inconvenience for her to commute from her native place to Hyderabad to attend the proceedings in FCOP No.1068 c;f 2O2I. It is further averred in the affidavit that there is a threat from the respondent and whenever she appeared before the Court of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad she was threatened by the respondent

¶25

4 . Having regard to the averments of the supporting affidavit, scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, considering the convenience of the petitioner / wife who is living with \F ,. ' earents^{under their protectiveumbrella, I frnci justification in the}

¶26

AVR.J TT.CMP l7'7 2022

¶27

¶28

¶29

request of the petitioner / wife as she is^{living under the} protective umbrella of her parents.

¶30

In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaleous Petition is allowed, FCOP No. 1068 of 202^{1, pending} on^{the file of} the Judge, Family Court, city Civil Courts,^{Hyderabad is ordered} to be withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the^Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar for disposal in^{accordance with law.} lrarned Judge, Family Court, City Civil^{Courts,Hyderabad} shall transmit the entire case records in^{FCOP No.1068 of 2021} , duly indexed, to the Court of the Judge,^{Family Court,} Karimnagar within one month from the^{date of receiptof copy of} this order. In ttre circumstances of the^case, there shall^{be no} order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous^petitions if aly, pending in this Tr.CMP, shall stand closed

¶31

SD/. G, SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// :

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

¶34

The Judge, Family^{Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad'}

¶35

The Judge, Family^{Court, Karimnagar.}

¶36

One CClo SRl.^{S.RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶37

One CC to SRl. J.MOHAN^{SINGH, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶38

Two CD Copies

PSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 910912022

ORDER.

TRCMP.No.177 of 2022

S A rF
{
(
d 13 iru 2123
-q
,:1 .../
'-.;-- . --..:-i

¶46

ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶47

tn
<br>

Gattoju Haritha v. G.Sai Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gattoju Haritha v. G.Sai Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Masuri Nagaiah Vs Jangari Suja

Salvadi Sushma alias Mudsu Sushma Vs Salvadi Suresh

Raishetti , Kolipaka Tirumala Vs Kolipaka Nagasaikiran

Smt. Bandoju Krishnaveni Vs Uppula Aravind Kumar

P.N.Sudhakar, Vs Mohammed Ismail

Mohd Abdus Saleem Vs Smt.Khairunnisa Gouher