Allowed

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika v. Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023TRCMP/18/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Sections 24 and 151 of the CPC sought to transfer a family court case. The petitioner, a lady suffering from health issues, prayed for transfer to ease attendance. With no objection from the respondent, the High Court allowed the transfer of the proceedings and quashed stays.

What did the court decide?

Transferred F.C.O.P. No. 373 of 2022 from Medchal to Kukatpally. Granted stay of proceedings and appearance.

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika Vs Sagar Rao… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3258I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL M ISC.PETITION NO: 18 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika, Wo . Sagar Rao Gannamaneni Aged about. 30 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o. H.No. 5-2-4t22, Ramat-ayam Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-50007 2

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER/RESPONOENT

¶11

Sagar Rao Gannamanneni, S/o. prabhakar Rao Gannamaneni, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Software Consuttanl R/o. 4340, Arroyo Driving frririg, ix-25-06j," 9^.9^{A|uq,By Speciatpowerof Artorney(SpA)} lrober Anlamm-a CanniniJneni W/o Prabhakar Rao Gannamaneni Address. Ii Nb. i_ 1_4tBt35O, plot No.^- 191|p, 1o2lp, Mahadevapuram, Near St AlphoneJ High Scnooi, Cajutarariaram Quthbullapur, Medchal tr4atkajgiri

¶12

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶13

Petition Under section 24 of the c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith,the High court may be preased to transfer the F.c.o.P. 373 ot 2o22 on the fire of Honbre lr Additionar District Judge court cum Family Judge Court Medchal Malkajgiri at Medchal to Hon,ble lll Addl. District Judge cum Family Court at Kukatpally

¶14

lA NO:^'t OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased ro grant stay of all further proceedings in F.c.o.p. 313 of 2022 on the file of Hon,ble ll Additional District Judge Court cunl Family Judge Court Medchal Malkajgiri at Medchal including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the Transfer Petition

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶17

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 pteased to AMEND the^pRAyER as F c.o,p No. 650 0f 2022 0nthe fire of 11 Addr. District and Sessions Judge cum_ll Addl. lvletropolitan Sessions Judge_cum_ll Addl Family court, Medchar instead of F.c-o-p No. 373 of 2022 onthe fire on Hon,bre lr Additionar District Judge courlcum-Famiry Judge court Medchar-Markajgiri At Medchal in Transfer.CMp as well as in l.A NO. 1ot 2o23in Transfer.CMp

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. p. VISHNUVARDHANA REDOY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. PATRORI SR|NIVAS RAO

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU TRANSFER CrVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.18 OF 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This petition has been liled by the petitioner against the respondent/ husband undcr Secrron 24 of C.p.C. with a pra)'er to transfer the perition liled by respondent vide F.C.O.P.No.373 of 2022 frorrr Lhe tile of II Additional District and Sessions .Judge cum-Famrlv Court Judge, Medchal Malka.lgir; District ar I\4cdchat to III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, at Kukatpally.

¶24

As per thc aflidavit filed rn supporr of the petition, it seems, the marriage ol the petitioner was performed with the respondent on 05.0.].2017 at N Gardens, Kukatpally in accordance u ith Hindrr Ritr:s and Customs. She joined the respondent at rhe matrimonial house. tsut, subsequently there were drsputes u,hen lhe respondent ancl his family members started abusing the petitioner on the ground that her parents iaileci to perform the nrarriagc in a grand scale, and if thc marriage cf tlrc resp,rndent r.r'as performed with

¶25

¶26

Tr C.tfi' t-to.18 oJ 2023

¶27

another g rl, they n,ould have received rnore (lou rv from a rich {arul' ',

¶28

:1. TI-Le petitioner has claimed that subsr:qu-:ntlv sher joined t.h,: respondent at United State oi rrmt rica. but realizod tl at the respondeut has got illicit allzrirs Hc n,as t-tot sirol'i 1g any affection and love tou,rrcls 1[r6 pctitioncr The petiti )ner herein came to knor.r, th lt irr .l.ug lst, 2017 thr rcspo rdent u'ent ou ar joll-r, trip ri iil-i il [(,nr; It' lrie nd 'lhercibre, disputes arose betu,een the c<ruplr:

¶29

The petitioner has clarmed that shr: rr i s scparated fro u-r [hr' r rspondent and living alone u ith ir:- rgc:l pareltts at Kul<atp ll1y. She is suffcring from s,'r,cr,-- -rcalth issues and obt,ar ning medical tr-eatmer-rt at Hvdr: -,rb:Ld. Tl-re respond,:nt has filed a pctltion for rlivorcr. r'i,lc PCOP No.65O of 2022 on the file of II Addirior-r:l )islrict and Sessionsr Judge-cum Family Court Jrrdge iLt Medchal Therefbre. she sought for transfer ol Lhr. z lt rvc refcrred divorc c pe tit-ion from II Additional District rrnd Sessions j uicigc cun -F'amil,v CourL Judge at lviecichzii L,t F:rmilr C.ourt at I( rkatpally

¶30

¶31

TT.CMP No.7a^{of 2O23}

¶32

Notice before admission^{was ordered}

¶33

6 The respondent^{appeared before the Court}

¶34

Heard both Parties.

¶35

7 Now the point^{for considera[ionts :} Whether there are^qrounds fo' transfeting F.C.O.P.No.373 of²⁰²² front^the Jile^{of II Additional} Distnct and^{SessionsJuclge-cum-FamilgCourtJudge} at Medchal to^tLrc file^{oJ III AdditionalDistnct iudge-} cum- Farnilg^{Court, at Kuketpally,as praged for?}

¶36

8. POINT

¶37

Learned cotrnsel^{for the petitloner rvhile reiterating} the petition^{avcrmentshas submitted that the petitioner} being a lady,^{sufferingu'ith health issnes and who is taking} shelter at her^{aged parents, is not in a position to attend} the Court at^{Medchaland sought for transferof FCOP to} Famity Court at^KukatPallY.

¶38

g. The respondent^{u'ho appearedbefore the Court} through his counsel^{reportedrto objectionto the said} request. Therefore,^{in view' ol no objection reportedby the} respondent, there^{is no necessit,t to discuss the issues}

¶39

7' CM,, No. 1a of ZO23

¶40

rars()d b., thc petitioner in the affidavit ancl tl.e ])ciitron c:r, lle 61151;6;sd.

¶41

I:n the result, thr: petition is irllou,::d. As ir conscqu( nce, thereof, F.C.O.p.No.373 of 20,)-21 orr the filc oI ll Addrti tnal District ar-rd Sessions Jucll: r:um.l.antrh. Court Jr rdge at IVledchal Malka;giri is u irhd .rlr n anci transfcr-rr d to the file of III Aclditional District rn<l Sessiorrs .Iuclgc-<,r,r n Family Court, at Kukatpall.r.

¶42

1^j l'hc c,ncer,ecl Court is hereb,r., cirrcct..l t() tra,ent t the cnt.r'( (lase file, after duly indcx<,d. u it_rrr.r (.1) lortr ttc'cl<r; l- () n Lhe clate of rr:ccipt of tltis Orcir I, rrrrclc_r ti_rc intrm;rtron to the other side.

¶43

'\s a sequel, pending Miscellaneoirs A rl ,lic.rtions, if

¶44

an-r', slra ll ,;tzrnd closed.

¶45

SD/.N.SRIHARI ASSII;1'ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYil

St:CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The llAddt I)istrict Judge court-cum-Family court court I,4e( jchal_Malka.lg jri at t,4edchal. 2. The lll Ari(,1 )it,trict Judoe-cum_Family Court at Kuhatoall / 3 one CC ic s Rr. F vtsriNU.vnRDHArtAFtbiji, 4 onc c( i- s ii p sRrNrvAS Rno ffiocEi;jod,J"ij^il[catr^lclruc] 5 Two CD Ctp :s

¶50

One Spare C rpy

ti t4

HIGH COUR"

DATED:0310'112023

ORDER

TRCMP.No.l8 of²⁰²³

al- :j iaI
1t
i o,.').'
/3
i1
t)l' 1 3 JiIi 208 j

¶58

ALLOWIN(i^{THE TRCMP} WITHOUT,)OSTS

¶59

-.-' ^ i..u).. @^L'tx' 9 e,

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika v. Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika v. Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

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

Smt. Yalanati , Gurram Sravya Vs Yalanati Govardhan

Smt. Deekonda Prasanna , Gangula Prasanna Vs Deekonda Arun Kumar

Aligoju Laxmi Vs Narsimha Thandra

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others Vs Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari Vs Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

Max Hypermarket (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Renu Kumari Agarwal