Allowed

Smt. Samala (Kanche) Yadamma alias Sahasra v. Samala Kumar alias S.Ravi

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023TRCMP/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed the wife's case in a divorce petition filed by the husband. Considering the wife's financial inability to travel and her pending cases in a specific district, the court deemed the transfer of the divorce petition to that forum justified to protect her interests.

What did the court decide?

The divorce petition FCO P. No. 29 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Judge, Nagar Kurnool.

Smt. Samala (Kanche) Yadamma alias Sahasra Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTTCE SAMBAS]VA RAO NAIDU

¶6

TR.C.M.P. NO: 13 O F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Sgmala. (Kanqhg) Yadamma @-satrasra, Wo. S. Kumar @ Ravi, Aqe. 33 years,.Occ. Ho_use Wife, Rl/o. H.No. 1--2O Dasartapafle Viilage, Uppinritiib'f,rfl-riOrr, Nagarkumool District, Telangana-S09385

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|T|ONER

¶11

Samala Kumar @ p.Ravi, S/9 S. Venkataiah, Age. 35 years, Occ. private Employee, R/o. H.l.,lo 19 sf, Radhamma Batamm-a Bloc'k, Va;ba, Coiony, Nandanavanam, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana -50d097

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 ot the c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to transfer o.P.No. 2912022 on the fire of rhe Famiry Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to the file of Family Judge, Family Court, Nagar Kurnool

¶14

IANO:1OF2 023

¶15

Petition under Section i 51 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 o.P.No. 2gt2o22 on the file of the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, including the appearance of the petitioner herein

¶16

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s B.Hima Varshini, Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HOI{ )URABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIV/q }tAC} NAIDU

¶19

TRANSI'E: CTVIL MISCELLANPOUS PETITION N(I., I3 OF 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

l-hr s lransler Civil Miscellaneous Petit on LLas been filed b' the petitioner/wife aE zrnsl. the respor: den^/husband under Section 24 ol th,:^ti odc of Civil Proccdur,:, I t)08 with a prayer to transfer F.(1,,1,.P. No.29 of 2022 f-on [r,: file of the Family Judge, R;rngeu<:rldl, District at l,.E.N:r1l u-, to the file of the Family ,Jrr:lge, Nagar I(urn oo I

¶22

The p titioner has filed her affidavit in r;rr1:po-t of the petitior) a. C has submitted that her nr ar ria,3e was perfornrec^.' rtl-r tl-re respondent on 24.O5.2019 a1 Ar:tharam Village o1'^'adoor Mandal. Eversince the ,la te of the marrialle, : to respondent harassed the 1lt:.:rtioner for additiorral ,1 l1vry and abused her in filthy l:u-rgrua;3e. The petitioner ar d the respondent started thcir rnat ital life at Hl,derabacl incr: the respondent has been rv:r'king as a softu,arr. er pJo1'ee and out of the wedlo<:l.:, r.hey were blessed ir.i Lt a grrl child on 28.O2.2O2O. T)-re pe ti,.ioner has

¶23

¶24

stated that subsequent to the birth of her girl child, the respondent did not visit the house of her parents where she delivered the baby. Therefore, the petitioner herself went to the house of her husband along with her girl child and there was heated arguments between the couple, during which, the respondent informed to the petitioner that he will leave the company of the petitioner and he is going to file divorce petition. Accordingly, the respondent has filed F.C.O.P.No.29 of 2022.

¶25

The petitioner has further submitted that her parents belongs to a lower income group ald they are not in a position to provide necessary expenses and that she has to attend the Court below at L.B.Nagar arrd the distance between her native place and Hyderabad is more than lOO K.Ms.

¶26

The petitioner has stated that she filed the petition seeking maintenance vide M.C.No.15 of. 2O22 and also filed another case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2OO5 vide D.V.C.No.6 of 2022 at Nagar Kurnool. Therefore, the petitioner sought for transfer of the divorce

¶27

petitiorl lilr d by the respondent from L B.Na61 tr o Nagar I(urno 11

¶28

llot-c: belore admission was ordered. \oticc sent to the adclres furnished by the respondent in the divorce petition u'ar returned r.r,ith an endorsemt:nt 'urt,:larmed'. It is deenrecl r ra.t service against the respondenl isr sufficient Hence, he r' rs set ex parte.

¶29

H:ard earned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

Nou/, re point that would emerge lbr cLt tr rmination 1S W rethr r there are anv grounds to t:orLsider the l'e( luos of the petitioner for transfr r ol tl e iivorce petitiol filed by her husband ?

¶31

As pe r -he averments made by the petitiorrer in her affidavit ar-rrl as per the arguments advanc:ci ty her coun sel it r epicts that the petitioner along with her daughter hii:; been staying at the house ol' her llrrrents at Nagar K rrnc ,l u,hereas the respondent, wiro l'as been working ils s, tware employee, filed divorce petir.it:n before Family Co -r , L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy Dislri:t. The petitroner rs l-rouseu,ife u,ithout any sepzrratt: s tut ce of

¶32

¶33

¶34

income. It is true that the petitioner cannot bear the expenses, if she has to attend the Court and defend the divorce petition hled by her husband at Hyderabad.

¶35

In Judgment N.C.V.AISHWARYA a.

¶36

A.S.SARAVANA I{ARTHIK S,HAI, the Honble Apex

¶37

Court was pleased to observe the following:

¶38

Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generollg, it is the uife's conuenience uhich must be looked at while consideing transfer."

¶39

By relying the Judgment referred supra, and having rega-rd to the facts and circumstances of this case and arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in matrimonial disputes, the interest of wife shall be considered rather than the interest of the respondent. The petitioner being a mother of a small child without having any sepa.rate source of income cannot afford the travelling expenses.

¶40

'^{2oz2scc oNLtNE sc99}

¶41

¶42

In lact. he respondent 1S alreadl lacir g trial in

¶43

malntena ce case zrnd domestic violence ,:zrse filed by the pe tit.ic re'r at Nagar Kurnool. Therrfort:, the request of the petit onor can be considered

¶44

Lrncle the discussion made hereir:lt:fore, the petitio:r ir allorved. As a conse(luerl()(,^'-hereof, F.C.O.^).ltk, 29 of 2022 on the file of the Fa:lily Judge, Rangaledd' District at L.B.Nagar, is withclrav,n and transferrr:d to the file of the Famiiy' Ju,i1;e, Nagar Kurnool

¶45

TtLe , nrcerned Court is heretry Cir:cted to transmit thr cntire case file, after duly inck:;r:C, within two wet:ks, t^-om the date of receipt of a cc1t.g of this Order, lrncle the intimation to the other sidr:

¶46

Perrdir-rr miscellaneous applications, i{ a:ry, shall stand close'c No costs.

¶47

Sd/-P r:iOtn'Rl SHANKAR ASSIS T,.\NI' REGISTRAR r),-' <-,--/ S]I- ]TION OFFICER

¶48

//TRUE COPYII

¶49

¶50

1 The Family Jud,l r, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. The Famity Ju j<r :, Famity corrtl r.r"qlrkrinlo].'"' 9 9n"^{CC ro M/s; i, nima v'arsrrini} nJTolr'i,j'i6Eucl 4. Two CD Cc pies Kj ?l^4',

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

DATED:2410:r1202

¶53

t"
:..-
li ) 1 5 'il [l ?[23
t

¶54

ORDER

¶55

TRCMP.No.13 cf Il0l 3

¶56

P$u' \n1:'

¶57

ALLOWING THE TR.(: UP WITHOUT COSTS.

Smt. Samala (Kanche) Yadamma alias Sahasra v. Samala Kumar alias S.Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Samala (Kanche) Yadamma alias Sahasra v. Samala Kumar alias S.Ravi

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

B.Ramesh Vs a. Mallesham

Mahaboob Bee Vs Paluri Shyamsunder

N.Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs a.Rajanarsu

Yellendula Venkateshwarlu and 3 others Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited

Thanneeru Yella Rao Vs Smt. K. Sowjanya

Gudla Archana Vs Gudla Ganesh