Allowed

Thandra Kavya, v. Gudibandla Shyam Kumar

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022TRCMP/195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, directing the withdrawal of a divorce case from L.B. Nagar Family Court and transfer to Kothagudem. The court prioritized the wife's convenience and concluded that alleged threats to the husband could be addressed via criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of FCOP No.751 of 2022 from Judge Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Thandra Kavya, Vs Gudibandla Shyam Kumar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.1 95 ot 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thandra Kavya, W/o.G.Shyam Kumar, Age 25 years,Occupation Private Employee, R/o.21 Pit, Vijayalakshminagar Village,Yellandu [Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudam District Telangana-

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Gudibandla Shyam Kumar, S/o.Devaraj, aged 29 years, Occ. Private Employee, Fl/o.H.No.3-47, 21 PitThilaknagar, Yellandu Colls, Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana Presently residing at H.No.1-7-58, Road No.14, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar-500060.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Transfer OP No. 751 of 2022 from the file of the Hon'ble Ju.dge Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar to the court of the Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of^justice.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 all further proceedings in OP no. 751 of 2022 from the file of the Hon'ble Judge Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar pending disposal of the Transfer CMP; and be^pleased to^pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Cou( may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of^justice.

¶16

This Petition cor ring on for hearing, upon perusing th€, Petition and the affidavit filed in suppor lhereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for tt e Petitioner and of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar. ltdvocate for the Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the fc lowing: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.No. 195 of 2022

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner/wife has filed this Transler Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') with a prayer for withdrawal of OP No.751 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to transfer the same to the learned Principal District Judge at Kothagudem.

¶21

Notice served on the respondent/husband and he filed a detailed counter.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The submissions made on either side l'' ave received due consideration of this Court. Perused the materi:l available on record.

¶23

The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition are that the petitioner is the legally^wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage was^performedon

¶24

O.I2.2O2| at Yellandu and it is a love marriage.^Soon

¶25

PaFe 2 of 10

¶26

,\,R.^J T^(-1.1P \o. 195 ,ri l0ll

¶27

after thei rnarriage, the petitioner left to her p,arents house for custo nary ceremonies and the responde r-rt promised to join her, but failed to take her back to 1-r:r' matrimonial house. S re was waiting with a fond oi }-rotrrr: that he may take her back to his conjugal society. But to her utter surprise, she has received notice in^tlP No.751 of 2022 filed by the respondent/husband lor rlissolution of marriage She is residing r.r'ith her parents nithin the limits of Bhadr rclri-Kothagudem District. lt rs r:ausing lot of inconven :nce for her to commute fron: her native place to Family^(:ourt at L.B. Nagar, accoldingl5,, prayed for withdraw rl of OP No.75 1 ol 2020 pending on the file of the Judge, F rrnily Court, Ranga Reddy District at I-.8. Nagar and to tri nsfer the same to the Court ar- Kotha-gr-rdem.

¶28

The respondent/husband has filed a detailed counter denl,ing t te petition averments.

¶29

5 (a) The main averments of the r;ountr:r which are required br the purpose of this TT.CMP as culled out are that he ir denying the marriage with the pelilioner stating at he ir a social worker and he has t.,een tarticipating in

¶30

Page 3 of 10

¶31

AVRJ 'lr.CMP No. lq5 ol 2022

¶32

TRS Party activities. Thc TRS Party appointed him as SC Cell President of TRS Party in Yellandu Mandal in the year 2O2O. The SC Madiga community kept an eyesore and developed grudge upon him and hatched up a plan, provoked the petitioner to immerse him into love with her. Accordingly, the petitioner and other group members of SC community obstructed him while he was going outside by his car, and forcibly pulled out of the car and dragged him to the Anjaneyaswmay Temple lor about one kilometre and locked him for four hours where the petitioner and the police personnel came there and started quarrelling with him. Police tried their level best to pacify the incident. The petitioner and her group persons insulted him in most filthy language and demanded that he should come to the residence of the petitioner and marry her, otherwise they will book him for various criminal cases. Having no other alternative, he left to Hyderabad. There was no^marriage performed and he left the company of the petitioner^just after completion of tying up thread^{to her, as such there} was no cohabitation between them.^{Thereafter, he cameto} . Hyderabad, approached the counsel, filed this divorce OP

¶33

Pagc 4 of 10 \ R.l I i \11, \r' l(lr ol 102-l

¶34

undcr Se:tion 12 (1)(c) of the Hindu M:'Lrriap;t: Act, i955 for dissolutir n of the marriage that took plact-' orr 30 12.2021

¶35

5 (b) It i , lurther alleged that the fanily rn r'mlrers of the petitione have hatched up a plan rurcl accordingly obstructr d him on 1O.O4.2022. He gave a cornplaint to the police, "eilandu, wherein Crime Nr.!r2 ,tl 2022 was registere I and another case in Crime Nc,. 111:l or 2022 was also regi ;tered. He has also fi1ed Writ Perition No.B741 of 2022 se< king a direction to the Police, Yellan,iu to consiCer his corr plaint and that there is a thrr:at I o his life, accordir 3ly, prayed for dismissal of thrs Tr. ll\ilP

¶36

5 (c) AL ng with the counter, he has a.so filed a copy of FIR in Crim,^, No.92 of 2022 for the offences punistrable under Sections 341,294-8, 324 and 506 read wittr Section 149 of the Indi m Penal Code and a copy of FIR,n Crime No.143 of 2022 is also filed. The respondent has ,llso filed copy of orders n WP No.8741 of 2022, out-p.rti()nt slip and his photogr rphs.

¶37

O r a careful perusal of the ave rmenrs oi supporting affidavi filed by the petitioner and the counter filed by the

¶38

Page 5 of 10

¶39

AVRJ TT.CMP No. I95 ol 2022

¶40

respondent along with the relcvant material, it is lound that the respondent has been denying the marital relationship and the legal status of the petitioner as his wife stating that out of coercion and threat, he was forced to tie Mangalasutra and there is no cohabitation betrveen them and that there is a threat to his 1ife, if the matter is transferred from L.B. Nagar to Kothagudem.

¶41

7 . It may be stated that the respondent has filed a copy of FIR in Crime No.92 of 2022, phoLographs and copy of writ petition. Undisputedly, the parties are Hindus. The petitioner is claiming her status to the wife. As per Section 19 (iii)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, wife is entitled to prosecute the matrimonial disputes before the jurisdictional court where she is presently living. As of now she is living with her parents under their protective umbrella in the limits of Kothagudem. Though the husband has filed criminal cases and the writ petition, she did not choose to file any other cases.

¶42

It is the case of the petitioner that^she was eagerly waiting with a fond of hope that the^{respondent may come} T-.--

¶43

Page 6 of 10

¶44

AVR.I \ll l:ir.1'): ol lol2

¶45

ar-rd tak: her to his conjugal societi,, but to her utter surprise and dismay, she has received n rticr: from the Familv⁽ ourt at L.B. Nagar. Having tro othr:r^()ption, she has filed this Tr.CMP.

¶46

It ir not the case of the respondent that thr: petitioner is gainfu l-v employed or that he is paving ;rr.rintenance to her nor re has offered to pay any amount tou'ards her conYeyar le charges to attend the Familv Clor-;rt at L.B Nagar. t he petitioner is young lady ageri ab,rut 25 years. She is a rrivate employee. She has to c(rmrr ut,: from her native I lace Vijayalakshminagar vrllage of Yellandu Mandal,^j |hadradri-Kothagudem on each ancl evc'ry date of hearing t r attend the court case at L.B. It agar'. On the other ha rd, even as per the counter avr:rrrLents, the responde: Lt has liled a criminal case in Crime No.92 of 2022 and alother criminal case in Crime: Iro 1,43 of 2022 before th: Police at Yellandu of BhaCradrr-Kothagudem District a rd even if there is anv threat to his life, he is always at liberty to initiate crimina-l proser:u.tion against the concer ned persons. \

¶47

Page 7 of 10

¶48

AVRJ Tr.CNii, \o. I95 ol 2O2.1

¶49

In this context, I mav refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sangeetha alia.s Shrega u, Prasq.nt Vijag Wargiga^t wherein it is held that if any threat perception is given to the respondent/husband, he is always at liberty to lodge a report before the police concerned or to complain before the concerned Court. Il any such complaint is made, it will be considered by the Court or by the concerned police on its own merits. It is further held that between husband and wife, the convenience of the wife and minor child must prevail.

¶50

In IV. C. V, Aishutarya u. A.S. Sara oqna Korthik Sha2 the Apex Court while dealing with the similar facts held that the applicant/wife who is young lady aged about 21 years staying alone along with her aged parents, it is diflicult for her to travel all the way from Chennai to Vellore to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by^the respondent/husband seeking annulment of marriage, accordingly, considering the convenience of the^wife

¶51

t zoo+ 1ra1 scc 407 2 2022 Lire Law (SC) 627

¶52

Page 8 of 10

¶53

.,\il<. I ,r \11'] "r l(l; r)a l0ll

¶54

transfcrrr d the matter from the Famiiy Ccu:t, Vellore^to the jurisc.ctronal Family Court at Chenna:.

¶55

The Apex Court further held that the cardinal principle br exercise of power under Section 24 <,f C.P.C. is that ends of justice should demand the tran sf,:r r>f the suit, appe:al or other proceedings and in rnatr-inr,:nial disputes u'henever collrts are cal1ed upon to con sicle r t he plea of transfer, the courts have to take into r:orrsideration the social str Lta of the spouses, their behar ioured pattern, their standard ol life prior to marriage and subsr:<1uent thereto ald circt mstances under which both the pzrr:ies are eking out their livelihood and under whose proto,l.iv{) umbrella thev are seeking their sustenance e:.ncl 1-h at given the prevailinl socio economic paradigm in the Indian society generally it is the wife's convenience which rlust be looked into at w. Lile considering the transfer a1rplica.l.i on

¶56

In t re instant case, except making a1l,:gation that he was forc :d to marry the petitioner and that there is a threat to his life in the hands of the petitioner and her group pe sons, no other allegations are' macr). Ele it stated

¶57

Page 9 of 10

¶58

AVR.J TT.CMP \o. 195 .)t l0l-l

¶59

¶60

¶61

that even if any such threat is given, the respondent is always at liberty to initiate appropriate legal action against the petitioner or her family members.

¶62

In that view of the matter, considering the principles Iaid by the Apex Court in the above decisions and the scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, I find justilication in the request of the petitioner/wife for withdrawal of FCOP No.751 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, instead of Frincipal District Judge at Kothagudem.

¶63

In the result, the Transfer Civil Misceilaneous Petition is allowed. FCOP No.75i of 2022 pending on the file of the Iearned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,^{Kothagudemfor} disposal in accordance with law.^{The learnedJudge,Family} Court, Ranga Reddy District at^{L.B. Nagar shall transmit} the entire record in^{FCOP No.75lof 2O22 duly indexed,} within one month from the^{date of receipt of copy of this}

¶64

Paile 10 of 10

¶65

:\ Ii, I lr⁽ l,11, lr'h l()s r)l to-l-l

¶66

order. F o\vever, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be to order as to costs.

¶67

As I sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in tl.ris T .CMp shall stand closed.

¶68

¶69

SD/-T. JAYAS EE ASSISiIITAI!T REGIS AR //TRUE COPY//

¶70