Allowed

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another v. Mr. Suneel Kumar Kalekar

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022TRCMP/206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition. Drawing upon statutory provision for withdrawal and transfer and established judicial principles favoring the convenience of the wife and minor child in matrimonial matters, the court transferred the suit from the District Judge's court at Narayanpet to the Family Court, Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of GWOP No.3 of 2022 from District Judge, Narayanpet and transfer to the Principal Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIdH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD}

¶2

IMONDAY ,THE TWENTY^{SIXTHDAY OF SEPTEIMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEA.VENKATESHWARAREDDY}

¶5

TRANS. CIVIL MIS C.PETITIO^{N NO:206 OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Smt. Ir/adhuri Kalekar^{and another,w/o} Suneel Kumar Kalekar dio^B Venkatramulu Aged about^{34 years,Occ H} ousewife Both are^{residingat H.} No.2-'1-143, Nallakunta^{Hyderabad - 500044}

¶8

2 fi/aster Sanskar Kelekar,^{s/o Suneel Kumar KatekarAged about9 ye3rs, Occ'} Siua"nt being 1rlinor^{Representedby mother 1/adhuriKalekar 1st Petitioner} g"uardian B6th are rediding at^{H. No 2-1-143' Nallakunta}

¶9

t Hyderabad "i", "J^- 500044

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

l/r. Suneel Kumar Kalekar,^{s/o Shankarapppa Aged about 45 yeqr.s' Oc9} leoal^practitioner r/o^{H. No. 1g_35,Hatkarwadi,KosgiTown and l\4andal,} NaiayanPet District^{509 339 T.S.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition Under Section^{24 of the c.P.c- Praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court maybe pleasedtoto Transfer} G.W.o.P.No3of2022(oldG.W.o.P.No42ol2021)pendingonthefileof District Judge Narayanpei^{District eitherto Family Court at City CivilCourt} iyJeranad 6r any^{other'Court of same Jurisdictiohat Hyderabadby withdrawing} thl same from the^{file of DistrictJudges Court Narayanpet District}

¶15

TR.C.M.P.M.P lA NO:^{1 OF 2022}

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to Grant} Stay of all further^{proceedingsincluding Trail hG'W O'P No 3 of 2O22} toro^{o.w.o.p. No 42 of 202i)pending on the fite of District Judge'scourt} Narayanpet.

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner(s):SRl. M MEHDI HUSSAIN}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{MOHAMMED IBRAHIM FARAZ}

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWAIRA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.No.2o6 of 2 o22

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The petitioner/wife along with her minor- child has tiled this Transfer Civil Miscellaleous petition under Section 24 of tine Civii Procedure Code, 190g (for short 'C.P.C.) for withdrawal of GWOP No.3 ol 2022 (otd GWOP No.42 ol 202 1) pending on the file of the District Judge at Narayanpet and to transfer the same either to the Famil.y Court at Hyderabad or some other Court within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad, alleging that she is residing with her minor child at Nallakunta, Hyderabad. She got married with the respondent on 28.03.2O12. She is blessed with a male child viz., Master Sanskar Kalekar on 24.O1.2014, now aged about 9 years. Therea_fter, due to bad vices of the respondent, she started living separately. The respondent is a practicing advocate at Narayanpet. She has filed Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.l59 of 2022, which is pending before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, the respondent has filed GWOP No.42 of 2021 before the Principal District Court at Mahabubnagar.

i--r-'

Page 2 of 7

,\i i:l^l lr a\il'] :\ir ).)t).). at.):

¶27

Subsequent to the carving out of new^{Judicial Districts,} this matter is transferred from Mahabubnagar^to Narayanpet and renumbered as^{GWOP No.3 of 2022. It is} causing lot of inconvenience to the^{petitionerto commute} from Hyderabad to Narayanpet on^{each and every date of} hearing along with her minor child.^{For the present, she is} an unemployed woman, though^{she has completed her} MBA. She is not getting any maintenance^{from her} husband, accordingly, prayed for^{vrithdrawalof GWOP No.3} of 2022 pending on the file of^{PrincipalDistrict Judgeat} Narayanpet ald to tralsfer the^{same to the jurisdictional} Court at Hyderabad.

¶28

This transfer petition is^{resistedby the respondent/} husband stating that the^{petitioner. has developed extra-} marital relationship with one^{Shivaram without giving} divorce to him, she is residing^{in an apartmentat HUDA} colony, Saroornagar and intentionally^{filed,this Tr.CMP. In} fact, notice was received by^{her in GWOP No.3 of 2O22 at} her address of Kosgi Town^{and Mandal,Narayanpet} District. Tlll 12.06.2022^{ttre minor childlived in the limits}

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

AVRJ Tr. CN{P \o.206 oi 2022

¶31

of Naravanpet District. It is onlv to harass the husband, she has filed this petition. She completed her BSC and MBA at Solapur. She has also liled a criminal case against him belore the police at Kosgi Town. She has also filed an application in IA No.65 of 2022 under Order VII, ]?u1e- i 1 ol C.P.C. lor rejection of the petition on false grounds. The respondent has filed photographs of the minor child and other connected papers to shou, that till recently the petitioner rvas residing in the limits of Kosgi Tor.r,n, which is within the territorial limits of Principal District Judge at Narayanpet.

¶32

Heard the learned counsei on both sides. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court. Perused the material available on record.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner/wi,-:b argued that it is causing 1ot of inconvenience to the petitioner/wife to travel from Hl.derabad to Narayanpet, eariier t.ee matter was pending before the Principal District .Iudge at Mahabubnagar, during that period she was attending the

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

AVRJ TT.CMP No.2O6 ol 2022

¶36

case and ''ife's convenience^{along with the convenienceof} mlnor cl-rild has to be considered in such^matters.

¶37

Per contra, the iearned counsel for the^respondent/ husband seeks to subrnit that the respondent^isa practicing advocate at Narayanpet, the^{petitioner is bent} upon to hdrass the respondent. She^{ha-s filed a criminal} case in Crime No.246 of 2O2l^before the^{police at Kosgi} Tor.r,n. Another case in Crime^{No.24 1 of 2O2l is also} pending. She has not filed any proof of her living^at Naliakunta. Earlier, she was residing^{at HUDA colony,} Saroornagar and made some other wild^{allegations against} her.

¶38

Undisputedly, the^petitioner is^{the legallvweddedwife} of the respondent, who is a^{practicing advocate befordthe} Courts at Narayanpet. Earlier the matter^{was pending} before the Principal District Judge at^{Mahabubnagar and} during that period, the petitioner has not^{frled any such} Tr.CMP, but once the Judicial Districts^{were carved when} the matter is transferred to Narayanpet,^{the present} transfer petition is filed stating that^{itis causing lot of}

¶39

Pa Be 5 of 7 ,\i RJ 'l'r. CIVl P No.206 ot l022

¶40

lnconvenience for her to commute from Hyderabad to Narayanpet along with her minor child and also that she is not getting an1. maintenance from her husband.

¶41

7 . Be it stated that since the respondent is a practicing advocate at Narayanpet, itself may be sufficient to withdraw the pending GWOP from the file of the District Judge at Narayanpet and to transfer the same to some other Court. Though some wild allegations are levelled against the petitioner touching her character, there is no such proof is liled and this Court in Tr.CMp is not concerned with such allegations. That apart, the respondent has alleged that earlier the petitioner was living at HUDA colony, Saroornagar and she has not shown any proof of her living in arr apartment at Nallakunta.

¶42

B. Be that as it may, whether she is living at Nallakunta or HUDA colony, Saroornagar, it is within the limits of Greater Hyderabad. She is unemployed young woman. The mere fact that a criminal case filed by her before the poiice at Kosgi Town is pending in the iimits of Narayanpet Judicial District by itself is not sufllcient to decline the

¶43

AVRJ 1'r.CM P Nc.2O6 of 2022

¶44

Page 6 of 7

¶45

request oF the pctitioner. In case of matrimonial^disputes, the 1au, is rvell settled that betu,een husband and wife,^the convenience of the r..'ife and minor chrld must^prevaii.

¶46

In IV.C. V. Aishwarya u. A.S. Sara oana I{orthik Shal

¶47

the Hon'ble Apex Court ',vhile 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 difficult for her to travel all the way from Chennai^{to Vellore} to attend the collrt proceedings of the case filed by^the respondent/ husband seeking annulment of marriage, accordingly, considering the convenience of the^wife transferred the matter from the Family Court, Vellore to the^{jurisdictional} Family Court at Chennai.

¶48

Therefore, whiie considering the fact that the respondent is a practicing advocate at Na-rayanpet and the petitioner started living with her minor child at Hyderabad, she has also filed a DVC before the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, I find^{justification} in her request for withdrawal of GWOP pending on the fiIe of the Principal

¶49

'^{2022LiveLau, (SC) 627}

¶50

P a9e 7 of 7

¶51

! i.C\lP f o.-20rr ot .2021

¶52

.\ R.I

¶53

District Judge at Naravanpet and to transler the same to the Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad.

¶54

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscelianeous petition is allowed. GWOP No.3 ol 2022 pending on the file ol the learned District Judge at Narayanpet is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with larv. The learned District Judge at Narayanpet shail transmit the entire record in GWOP No.3 of 2022 duly indexed, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if an1. pending

¶56

in this TT.CMP shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/-L.SIVA^PARVATHI ASSIST,ANT,REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// sr:irrbr.r^oFFlcER

¶58

To,

¶59

1 . The District^{Judge Narayapet District}

¶60

The Judge^{Family Cou(at City CivillCourt Hyderabad}

¶61

One^{CC to SRl.M MEHDI HUSSAIN Advocate[OPUC]}

¶62

One CC^{to SRl. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM FARAZ Advocate [OPUC]}

¶63

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶64

One^{SPare CoPY}

c,J

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/0912022

1 IA Ic
{
(:
2 6 rcl 2022

¶69

ORDER

¶70

TRCMP.No.206 of 2022

¶71

ALLOWING T'H E'[R.C.M.P

¶72

WITHOUT COSI

¶73

-x

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another v. Mr. Suneel Kumar Kalekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another v. Mr. Suneel Kumar Kalekar

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

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr Vs Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Sarikonda Nagendra Bhat

M/s. Grove Limited, Vs M/s. Shrinath Roto Pack (P) Ltd.

Panasa Srikanth Vs T. Ram Mohan Rao

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Saronda Nagendra Bhat

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others Vs Y Naga Satish and 2 Others