Allowed

Dasari Sruthi v. Dasari Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022TRCMP/211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, per A.Venkateshwara Reddy, allowed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by a wife seeking withdrawal and transfer of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights O.P. from Khammam to Warangal Family Court under Section 24 CPC to ensure her convenience with her minor child. The O.P. is transferred without costs.

What did the court decide?

O.P. No. 118 of 2021 pending before Judge, Family Court, Khammam is withdrawn and transferred to Judge, Family Court, Warangal for disposal.

Dasari Sruthi Vs Dasari Srinivasa Rao — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No: 211 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dasari Sruthi, Wio. Srinivas Rao, Aged . 27 yearc, Occu. Housewife, Rl/o Kolanupalli (V), Raparthy (M), Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Dasari Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswar Rao, Aged. 38 years, Occu. UnEmployee, Rl/o. Flat No. 43, Sricity, Barugudem (V), Khammam District

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

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 Restitution of Conjugal Rights O.P. filed by the respondent vide O.P.No.118 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge Family Court at Khammam.

¶14

lA NO: 1 F 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all^{further proceedingsin} O.P.No.118 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court at Khammam District pending disposal of the Transfer CMP.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. RAGHU RAMA AURAVA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: --

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BL' SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHW.RA REDDY TRAN ;FER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETI':ION NO.211 0F 2022

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Hea-d learned counsel for the petitione:. Perused the Memo along r rith postal track consignment r:y.ror1. wherein delivery of iter r on the respondent is confirmed. Respondent called absent ' .,ithout any representation and ht::rce, he is set ex-part€

¶22

Thi Tr:rnsfer Ci'",il Miscellaneous l),:t. tion is filed

¶23

under Section 2.1 of Civil Pror:edure Code (for sh,r't 'CPC') by the petitioner/ ivife against her husband, the responrl,:nt herein with a prayer to wi hdraw OP No. 118 of 2027, pendinl3 on the lile of the Judge, Far rily Court, Khammam and to transfer tlre same to the Cor,rrt of t rr: Judge, Family Court, Waranga,l lor rlisposal in accordance rvi h law.

¶24

As per the averrnents of the supporti rg aftidavit, the petitioner is t he legally wedded wife of the re ;pon,lent, their marriagt: u'as ;olemnized on 23.12.2O16, they v,t..:t: tr. essed with a male child zind thereafter disputes arose, :he :espondent

¶25

¶26

AVR,J TI.CMP 2ll 2022

¶27

¶28

started harassing her mentally and physically, despite intervention of elders, there was rro progress and finally she is forced to stay with her parents at their native place. In the meanwhile, the respondent / husband has filed OP No.118 of 2O2l before the Judge, Family Court at Khammarn. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is causing lot of inconvenience for the petitioner to commute from Iiolanupalli Village, Raparthy Mandal of Warangal District to the Family Court at Khammam along with her minor child on each and every date of hearing.

¶29

Therefore, having regard to the scheme of Section 19 (iii)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act wherein the wife is entitled to prosecute the matrimonial disputes before the jurisdictional Courts where she is living, convenience of the petitioner ald her minor child who are living with the parents of petitioner under their protective umbrella and as the respondent / husband remained absent despite service of notice, I find justilication in the request of the petitioner

¶30

In the result, this Transfer Civii Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, O.P. No.118 of 2O21, pending on the lile of \

¶31

¶32

AVR.J 'n.cMP 2 l| 2022

¶33

¶34

the Judge. Fa nily Court, Khammam is ordered to be withdrawn and transferr ld to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal for lisposa,l in accordance w'ith law. [,earned Judge, Family Court, Khammam sha.ll transmit the ent l'o case records in OP No.118 ol 2021, duly indexed, to the Corr:t of the Judge, Family Court Warangal within one month fi-o m the date of receipt of cop^' r-lf this order, In the circunlstal.es of the case, there shall l,e no order as to the costs. .{s a sequel, miscelianeous petitions if any, perrding in thir^'lr.rlMP, shali stand closed.

¶35

SD/.P.P AI)MANABHA^REDDY ASS :i ANT REGISTRAR ,TFIUE COPY// ,., )._ .:L It\r "$ECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Judge, F;^{milY Court' Khammam.}

¶38

One CC to Sr^{A. Raghu RamaAurava, Advocate[OPl'J(]l}

¶39

Two CD CoPi^rs

¶40

One SPare C, PY gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110512022

1 ,\ r
E o,c
Iti
'l 4 [!\l Nit
\r.l /
.
-:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

TR.CMP.No.211 of 2022

¶48

ALLOWING^-'HE TR.CMP WITHOUT COSTS :f(rv

Dasari Sruthi v. Dasari Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Sruthi v. Dasari Srinivasa Rao

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

Gattoju Haritha Vs G.Sai Ram

Smt. Bandoju Krishnaveni Vs Uppula Aravind Kumar

P.N.Sudhakar, Vs Mohammed Ismail

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

Nakka Posetty Vs N Jagannatham

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi Vs S.K. Jani Miya and Another