Allowed

Bollu soma Laxmi , Varalaxmi v. Bollu sudhir Kumar Yadav

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023TRCMP/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition to move a pending divorce case from Family Court, Ranga Reddy, to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The court held that despite a brief residence in Ranga Reddy, the couple primarily lived in Bangalore, and transferring the case reduces the petitioner's financial burden and inconvenience. The file is directed to be transmitted to the alternate court within fo

What did the court decide?

The divorce petition F.C.O.P. No. 1078 of 2022 is withdrawn from Family Court, Ranga Reddy, and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet District. The court is directed to transmit the file.

Bollu soma Laxmi , Varalaxmi Vs Bollu sudhir Kumar… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶8

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOU s PETITION NO: 198 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bollu soma Laxmi @ Varalaxmi, w/o. Bollu Sudhir Kumar D/o.p.Krishna 1nu-rthy,.^{aged about 32 years, occ- private employee,H.No 12-151,} Jajireddygudem, Arvapally, Suryapet District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Bollu sudhir Kumar Yadav, p{g S.fr/9!-r9n nao, aged 36 years, occ- private Employee, H. No .2-1 -14616/1 , Shri Venkataiariana co'lony,^{'1,,tagotE,-'} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

(CT amended vide Court order dated 06.01.2023 in LA.No. 1 of 2023.1

¶16

Petition Under section 24 of rhe c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to kansfer F.c.o.P No.'1078 of 2022 pending on the iire of Hon'bie ramiry court, Ranga Reddy District to Principar District and sessions Judge-cum-Famity cou"rt, Malkajgiri.

¶17

l.A NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the pLtition, the High cor.t ,ry^-u" gleas-g! to.stay arr further proceedings in F.c.o.p 1078 of zoz-z penoing o; the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

stated Petition under in the affidavit section filed in 151 support of cpc of the praying petition, that the in High the court circumstancesmiy -oe pleased to amend

¶21

a. "Transfer of F.c.o.P.No. 123o ol 2o21 ol Hon'bre Family court court, Ranga Reddy Division" to be amended as F.c.o.p.N o. lozB ot zoiz of Hon'ble principlr

¶22

District and Sessions Judge - cum - Family court, Malkajigiri in cause tifle, para No.2, Para No.4 & "in prayer".

¶23

b. Transfer to "Judiciar First crass I,4agistrate at rhungathurthy, suryapet District" to be amendeci as "senior civil Judge, suryapet Disirict" in para tt-o.+ a Prayer.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. B. KAVITA YADAV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. RAJESHWAR REDDY CHEEMARLA The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU TRANSFER CIVIL MISC US ON No . r98 OF 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This peLitior-t has been filed b,v the petitioner against the respondentr, husband under Section 24 of C.p.C. with a pra-yer to trarrsfer the petition filed by responclent vide Ir.C.O.P.N<I.l07g of 2022 from the file of Famity Court. Ranga Recidl, r)!s;1.ric.r at Malka.ygiri to the file of Senior Civii Judge, Sun.apcl.,

¶32

As per rhc alfidar-it fijed in support of the petition, it seems, the. mai-riage of the petitioner was perforrned with the respontlent during 2o19. She joined her husband and both of them lived at Bangalore as the responclent was w'orking rere . Subscquently, disputes arose between the t:oLtple in vierv ot. the interl.crcncc of thc parents and sister of respondent. Everr though they were staying at I3angalor.c. the r-cspondent filed a pctition sceking ciir,.orce at l-{_yderaba<J. i L scem s the petitioner rvas also working at Bangalorc ancl it is her case that since she vvas attending

¶33

TT.CMP No.l98^{oJ 2022}

¶34

¶35

-I

¶36

the Court at^{Hyderabad 1l' applf ing lrcqucnt learves' she} was forced to^{resignthc job and latcr the respondcnt} necked out^{her from his ilouse Thcrelorc' she took shelter} at the house^{of her} Parcn^{t s}

¶37

The petitioner^{htts liled a petition for marntenance} against the^{respondent vrde M C No 5 of2022and} D.V-C.No.3ol2022anclbotharcpcndingonthefilcof Judicial First^{Class Magistrate' Thungaturthi.She has} also alleged^{that the responclent assauited her father when} he accompanied^{the pctilioner to attencithe Family Court} at Hyderabad.^{Therefore,the petitioner prayed for transfer} of the^{divorcepetition filed bt' the respondent from Famrly} Court,^{Ranga Reddy to Family Court'Suryapet whichis} very close^{to her native lllace'}

¶38

The respondent^{opposed the petition and iiled his} counter^{and deniedall the materialaverments made by the} petitioner.^{The respondent has stated that the petitioner} and her^{father harassed hrm and his sister' The petitioner} got employrnent and lr'a s in fit condition^{even to work on}

¶39

¶40

rr.CMP No.198 of 2022

¶41

Saturda,r's. The peritioner and her father humiliated the father of the respondent rarsing his physical disability. The petitroner troubled him rr.ithour i,acating the flat where both of them resided for some period. He has also alleged that the petitioner filed a false case and sought for dismissal of thc- petition. The respondent has Iiled some documents in support of his claim and stated that a rnurder case was registered against the father of the petitioner. Therelore, he pra-l ed for dismissal of request of the petitioner herein.

¶42

5. Heard both parties.

¶43

6. Now the point for consideration is :

¶44

Whetlrcr there are ground.s -for transferring F.C.O.P.No. IC78 of 2022 from the fite of Family Court, Ranga Reddy Distict at Malkalgiri, to the jlle Senior Ciuil Judge, Suryapet, as praged. for ?

¶45

7. POINT

¶46

As per the averments and counter averments of the parties to rhe petition, it appears that the marriage of the

¶47

Tr.CI|IP No.198^{oJ 2022}

¶48

petitioner \'ils^{performcclduring 2O19Whilet1-re} responclcnt^{\'as 1{orkirrgat Bangalore'both thc coLlllle} lived at the^{place of his ernplor ment Thc pelttionerclaims} that there^{\'erc disputosand differences betweenthe} couple^{becauseof the rntcrference of the familvmembers of} the respondent.^{The respondentdisputedthat allegation} and alleged^{that he u'as subjected to 1-Iumiliat'ionancl his} father^{was Lnsulted}

¶49

8 Whatever it^{ma1' bct l-re case of rt'spondcnt' the fact} remains^{thatsubseqLrent- to thepctitioner leaviug} Bangalore^{ro the residence of his parcnts' house' she filed} two petitions,^{one fort he maintenanceand otherone IS} under the^{provisionsofDomesticViolenceAct} The respondent^{did not disputethe pendenc'v of those petitions'} The petitioner^{claims that she is doing private job at} Jaireddygudem^{ofSuryapetDistrictWhereas the} respondent^{filed divorce case at HyderabadThe petitioner} claims that^{she never resided with the respondent at} Hyderabad.^{Whereas the respondentclaims that they}

¶50

a----

¶51

¶52

TT.CMP No- 198 ol 2022

l ,}

( (

I I i I I I I !

resided at Sri Venkata Ramana^{Colon-r,'. Nagole,Ranga} Reddy District for lew days

¶57

9 . As per the averments made in the divorce^petition filed by the respondent, it is clear that the couple^livedat Nagole prior to both leaving for Balgalore where the respondent was having employment. Therefore, it cannot be said that thc couple last resided rvithin the limits of Ranga Reddy District or in HyderabaLd City. The petitioner who is a private employee, if asked to attend the Court at Hyderabad for defending the divorce petition, it will cause her financial burden apart from the journey b,y applying ieave to the private employment. Theretbre, the request oi the petitioner can be considered.

¶58

In the result, the petition is allowed. As a consequence, thereol F.C.O.P.No.1O78 of 2022 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri IS withdrawn and transferred to rhe hle of Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet

¶59

'lr.CMP No- l9a of²⁰²²

¶60

FiI

¶61

¶62

t1 The cottcernecl^{Coltrt is hercb,v-directed to transmlt} the entire case^{filc, aftcl dr'rlv irrclexed'n'ithirr (4) four} rvceks from thc^{date of rccciprof this Orrlcr' utrdcr tlle:}

¶63

intimatir-rn^{to the othersiclr:'}

¶64

if As a scquel,^{pencLng MiscellaneousApplicattons'} any, shall^{stand ciosed}

¶65

//TRUE^COPY//

¶66

i3!ie?XiY!i=ti:,'Ht[ (n7

¶67

SECTION^OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

The^{FamilyCourt, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri'}

¶70

The^{Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thungaturthy' Suryapet District} 3. The^{Principal Districtand Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court' Malkaigiri'}

¶71

One^{CC to M/s' B' KAVITA YADAV' Advocate [OPUCI} 5. One^{CC to Mr' RAJESHWAR REDDY CHEEMARLA' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶72

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶73

Njb a C;

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910312023

ORDER

SI (.).,,4:,, :-<br>o'
a:
c:)
01 itrlY ?fn
t)
I
t/.

¶78

TR.CMP.No.198 ot 2022

¶79

ALLOW]NG THE TR.C.M.P

¶80

,^)

Bollu soma Laxmi , Varalaxmi v. Bollu sudhir Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bollu soma Laxmi , Varalaxmi v. Bollu sudhir Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitya Naik Vs K. Ramakrishna Reddy

Smt. Paleti Vijayalaxmi Vs C.Subhadra

Khaja Sabhu and 3 others Vs a. Chandra Prakash Reddy

Yeluguri Suman Kumar Vs Yeluguri Srinivas

Sandaragiri Swathi , K. Swathi Vs K. Ramu Goud

S. Srivani Vs S. Brahma Chary