Allowed

Smt. Chintapalli Deepika , Jewji Deepika v. Vamshi Krishna Chintapalli

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022TRCMP/199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two transfer petitions filed jointly by a wife. The applicant sought withdrawal of proceedings in Khammam and transfer to Hyderabad due to residence and convenience. Relying on the husband's failure to rebut evidence of residence and Supreme Court precedents prioritizing the wife's convenience, the Court allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

GWOP No.2 of 2022 pending on the file of the District Judge Khammam and HMOP No.8 of 2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Khammam are ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Judge

Smt. Chintapalli Deepika , Jewji Deepika… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 199 &202OF 2022

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.1 99 OF 2022:

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Chintapalli Deepika @ Jewji Deepika, w/o Chintapalli Vamshi, aged about 38 years occ. Housewife, r/o H.No. 6-1-585/B/1 , PIot No. 4, It4aruthi Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Vamshi Krishna Chintapalli, s/o Chintapalli Aswin Prasad, aged about 41 years, occ. Software Employee, r/o D.No. 74-29-314, Plot No. 525, Srikrishna Nilayam, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju Road, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of C.P.C, Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw G.O.W.P. No. 2 of 2022 now pending on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Khammam, to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, or any other court in Hyderabad, having competent jurisdiction to try the same, in the interest of justice.

¶14

TR.CM.P.IA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 08 of 2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the main Transfer petition, in the interest of justice.

¶16

Tr.C. M. P. No .202 OF 2022:

¶17

Between:

¶18

Smt. Chintapalli Deepika @ Jewji Deepika, w/o Chintapalli Vamshi, aged about 38 years occ- Housewife, r/o H.No. 6-1-585/8/1 , Plot No. 4, Maruthi Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

Petitioner

¶20

AND

¶21

Vamshi-Krishna Chintapalli.. s,lo Chintapalli Aswin prasad, aged about 41 years, occ- S^oftware Emplolee, r/o D.No.74-29-314, plot No. 525,"Srikrishna tfitiyam,' Alluri Seetha Rama Raju Road, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, KrishnJ Diiiri"t

¶22

Respondent

¶23

Petition under Section 24 of c.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.o.p. No. 0B of 2022 pending on the file of the senior civil Judge, Khammam, to the court of learned Judge, Famiry court, city civil court, Hyderabad, or any other court in Hyderabad, having competent jurisdiction to try the same, in the inteiest of lustice.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.o.p. No. 0B of 2022 pending on the f]le of the senior civil Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the main Transfer petition, in the interest of justice, and pass, Pending disposal of rRCMp 202 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.

¶26

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. N USHA RANI. Advocate for the^petitioner No.1 and of Sri. c. c. S. sASTRy, Advocate for the Respondent 1

¶27

_.^{This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and} the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. N usHA RAN|. Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and of Sri. c. c. s. sASTRy, Advocate for the Respondent 1

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VEN}(ATESHWARA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.Nos.199 and 2Ct2 of 2022

¶30

COMMON ORDER:

¶31

Transler Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Tr.CMP) No.199 of 2022 is filed under Section 24 of the Civil^Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.) by the^{petitioner/wife} u'ith^a prayer for u,ithdrawal of GWOP No.2 of 2O22^pending on the file of the Additional District^{Judge, Khammam and to} transfer the same to the^{Judge, Fanrily Court at City Civil} Court, Hyerabad. Whereas, TT.CMP^{No.2O2 of} 2022^{is filed} by the petitioner/wife for withdrawal of^{HMOPNo.OB of} 2022 pendJr,g on the file of the Senior Civil Judge^at Khammam and to transfer the same to the^Judge,Family Court at City Civil Court,^Hyderabad.

¶32

Both the transfer petitions are between the same parties and in both the cases, the petitioner/wife has requested for transfer of GWOP and HMOP^{pending before} the Courts at Khammam to^be withdrawn^{and transferred} to the Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court,^Hyderabad. Accordingly, it is^proposed to dispose of both the^transfer petitions through this common order.

¶33

PaBe 2 of 10

¶34

,\,R'J Tr.CNlP Nos.lqg &. lo) o{ 2022

¶35

The main averments of the affidavits filed in^support of the transfer petitions are that the^{petitioner is a legally} wedded u,ife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 31.10.2013. Out of^the u,edlock, she begot a traby boy on 29.72.2015 and^{in due} course, she was subjected to mental and^physica-l harassment. She was again conceived and^gave birth to^a female child on 31.O8.2O2O at her^{parents' house.The} respondent did not turn up to take her^back, as such^she is constrained to stay back with her^{parents. The} respondent has filed HMOP No.8 of 2022 before the^Senior Civil Judge at Khammam for dissolution of marriage with false allegations. He has also filed GWOP^{No.2 of} 2022^on the file of the Principal District Judge at Khammam^for custody of the minor children and the respondent is fully aware that the minor children along with the^{petitionerare} residing at Hyderabad, but intentionally filed GWOP^No.2 of 2022 at Khammam to harass the^petitioner ald accordingly prayed for withdrawal of GWOP^No.2 of²⁰²² pending on the file of the District Judge, Khammam and HMOP No.S of 2022 pending on the hle of the Senior Civil

¶36

Page 3 of 10

¶37

AVR.J TT.CMP Nos. I99 & 2O2 ot 2O2)

¶38

Judge, Khammam and to transfer both the matters to the learned Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court at Hvderabad for disposal in accordance r,r,ith la',r,.

¶39

Despite granting ample opportunity, the respondent/ husband having engaged a counsiel failed to file any counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/rvife and the respondent/husband. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

¶40

The learned counsel for the transfer petitioner in both the transfer petitions would submit that the petitioner along with her minor children aged about six years and lS months respectively staying with her parents at Hyderabad and in proof of the same, she has filed rental agreement. It is further submitted that it is causing lot of difficulty for the petitioner to commute along with her minor children from Hyderabad to Khammam on each and every date ol hearing to attend both the cases and that the respondent intentionally filed GWOP before the Court at Khammam, though he is aware of the fact that the minor children are living with the petitioner at Hyderabad and requested for

¶41

Page 4 of 10

¶42

\iil 't r'('\ll'l'.',. 1!)(r^;i 1l-l^(,1 l0ll

¶43

withdrar.r'al of both the cases pending before the Courts at Khammam and to transfer the same to the learned Judge, Family Court at Cit. Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ husband rvould submit that both the petitioner and the respondent are employees at Bangalore, parents of the respondent are living at Khammam and it would be convenient for them to attend the cases at Khammam, and that the rental agreement liled by the petitioner does not contain the required details. In fact, as on the date of filing of GWOP, the petitione'r was a-lso living at Khammam and accordingly GWOP weLs filed at Khammam seeking the custody of children anil prayed for dismissal ol the Tr.CMP.

¶45

7 . The admitted or undisputed. facts are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage was consumrrated and out of the wedlock, she gave birth to two children, their elder son is aged about 6 years and the daughter is aged about 15 months and that they are living u,ith their mother at Hyderabad. Though the respondent has alleged that at the time of filing of GWOP

¶46

Page 5 of 10

¶47

AVR.J Tr Cl\41' Nos.I99 & 202 of 2022

¶48

No.2 of 2022 the petitioner \,as residing with her parents at Khammam, to that elfect no pro()f is filed, whereas the petitioner has filed rental agreement dated 23.O4.2022 to show that she is a tenant in the hor-rse of Mrs. M. Swetha, house bearing No.6-l-585 lB/1, ll l.loor consisting of two bed room portion, Maruthinagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. Though it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner and the respondent are working as soltware employees at Bangalore, no such proof is filed by the respondent to that e ffect.

¶49

B. On the other hand, in the caus,: title of GWOP No.2 of 2022, the address is shown as Vijayawada of Krishna District, whereas the address of the petitioner herein is shown as Khammam District. Similarly, in HMOP No.B of 2021, the address of the responderrt herein is shown as Vijayar.r,ada of Krishna District and the address of the petitioner herein is shown as Kharrrmam District. Thus, the respondent having alleged that himsell and the petitioner herein are working as software employees at Bangalore, failed to establish the same. On the other hand, the petitioner herein has iiled the rental agreement to show

¶50

Page 6 of 10

¶51

\, R^I 'lr (,Nll,,,. l(r(r,i -)(j-l r)l 201-?

¶52

that she is living at Hvderabad along rvith her t'"r'o minor chilclren. Ma1' be her perrents are resicling at l(hammam, but that bv itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is also living u'ith her parents at Khammam.

¶53

The respondent has not filed anv collnter and his only objectior.r is that at the time of filing of GWOP No.2 of 2022, the petitioner ',vas residing at Khammam u,ith her parents and accordirrgl_v GWOP u,as filed before the jurisdictional court at Khammam seeking custody of the minor children, but the petitioner has pleaded that she has been living at Hyderabacl and that she was deserted by the respondent since October 2O2O and she is taking care of her minor children in,cluding providing education to her son at Hvderabad

¶54

1O. The petitioner is young lady. She along with her two minor children are livir-rg separately from her husband. It may be stated that thr: respondent/husband has resisted the Tr.CMPs only on the ground that at the time of filing GWOP, the petitioner was living at Khammam rvith her parents, subsequently, she has shifted to Hvderabad, but

¶55

Page 7 of¹⁰

¶56

AVRJ TT.CMP Nos. t99 .& 2O2 of 2022

¶57

he has not filed any proof ol her staying at^Khammam during the relevant period.^{The parties} are^Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section¹⁹ (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that the^{u'ife is} entitled to prosecute the matrimonial disputes^{before the} jurisdictional court where she is living after she started living separately from her husband or^{she was deserted by} her husband.

¶58

1 1. In Sangeetha o'lias^{Shregaa. I'ro,so,rz.tViiag Wargigal} the Hon'ble Apex Court has^held that^{while considering the} transfer petitions, the convenience of^{the wife and minor} children must prevail^{when compared to the convenienceof} the husband.

¶59

In .IV. C. V. Aishuarya^u. A.S.^{Saraaan<r Karthik Sho2} the Supreme Court while^{dealingwitl-rthe similar facts held} that the applicant/wife who^{is young ladyaged about21} years staying alone along with her aged^{parents, itis} difficult for her to^{travei all the way fi:om Chennai to Vellore} to attend the court^{proceedings of the case Iiled by the}

¶60

'^{2oo4(13)scc 407}

¶61

'^{2022 LireLaw(SC) 627}

¶62

Page 8 of 10

¶63

respondent/ husband seeking annulment of marriage, accordingly, considering the convenience of the^wife transferred the matter from the Famih Cor-trt, Vellore to the jurisdictional Family Court at Chennai.

¶64

The Apex Courr: further held that the cardinal 1S principle for exercise ol power under Section 24 of C.P.C that ends of^j ustice shc,uld demand the transler of the suit, appeal or other procer:dings and in matrimonial drsputes whenever courts are c:alled upon to consider the plea of transfer, the courts have to take into consideration the social strata of the spouses, their behavioural pattern, their standard ol life prior to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances unrler which both the parties are eking out their livelihood and under whose proteclive umbrella they are seeking their sustenance and that given the prevailing socio econornic paracligm in the Indian society generally it is the wife's convenience which must be looked into at while considering the transfer application.

¶65

Reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner/wife is able to establish that she along with her

¶66

Page 9 of 10

¶67

AVRJ TT.CMP Nos.l99 &,2O2^{of )O22}

¶68

I i

¶69

minor children are living^{at Hvderabadand it is causing lot} of inconvenience lor^{her to commute from Hyderabadto} Khammam on each and^{every date of hearingin both the} GWOP and HMOP^{before the Courts at Khammam.As per} Section 19 (iii)(a) of^the Hindu^{MarriageAct, u'ife is entitled} to prosecute the matrimonial^{disputes from the place} where she is living and she^{is able to establishthat she} along with her minor children^{are living at Hyderabad.} Therefore, in that view^{of the matter, consideringthe} principles laid in the above^{decisionsr, the schemeof Hindu} Marriage Act and the^{provisionsof the Guardians and} Wards Act, 1890, I find^{justification in the requestof the} petitioner/wife for withdrawal of^{GWOP No-2 of 2022} pending on the file of the District^{Judge,Khammamand} HMOP No.8 of 2022^{pendingon the frle of the SeniorCivil} Judge, Khammam and^{to transfer both the mattersto the} Judge, Family Court at City^{Civil Court at Hyderabadfor} disposal in accordance^{with law.}

¶70

In the result, both^{the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous} Petitions are allowed.^{GWOP No.2 of 2022 pending on the} fiIe of the District Judge,^{Khammamis ordered to be}

¶71

PaBe 10 of 10

¶72

¶73

TI C\ll',,: 19(r ii. -llr.)i)l lO2-?

¶74

withdrau,n and transferred to the file of thc Judge, Principal F-amily Court at City Civil Court, H-r'derabad. Similarly, HMOP No.B of 2022^pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at l(hammam is ordered to be vr.ithdran,r-r and transferred to the Judge, Principal Family ltl Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad lor disposal accordance^q,ith lav,,. The learned District Judge, Khammam arrd the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam shall transmit the entire record in GWOP No.2 of 2022 and HMOP No.B of 2022 re:spectivellz, duly indexed rvithin one month frorn the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

As a sequel, interlocutory applicatio,rs, if any pending

¶76

in these TT.CNIPs shall stand closed

¶77

Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q/

¶78

SECTION OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80