Disposed

Vittal Shirisha v. Vittal Lingesh Kumar

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023TRCMP/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife filed CMP seeking transfer of husband's divorce petition for convenience. Court declined transfer but ordered local judge not to insist on her presence except for cross-examination and directed respondent to bear attendance expenses.

What did the court decide?

Additional Family Judge directed not to insist on petitioner's presence except for cross-examination; respondent directed to bear petitioner's court expenses.

Vittal Shirisha Vs Vittal Lingesh Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 30 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vittal Shirisha, Wo. Mr. Vittal Lingesh Kumar, Aged about 35 Years, Occ- Pvt Employee, H No. 3-1 19, Manjulapur Village, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

¶9

...PETITTONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

Vittal Lingesh Kumar, S/o. Vittal Shiva Kumar Aged about 39 Years OccSoftware Engg. Rl/o. 100 Vial Road Apg -G29, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA07054, Mobile No. (plus) 1 (973 ) 652 5948 Email. ld- [email protected]

¶12

...RESPONDENtS

¶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 pass orders for transfer the OP No. 1339 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Nirmal, Nirmal District.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OP No. 1339 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar otherwise the petitioner will put to irreparable loss and injury, pending disposal of the main transfer petition,

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A JAGAN

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: None AppeareiJ

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE H,: INOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASI/A. RTTO NAIDU

¶20

TRAN SI ER CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Yo. 3() OF 2023

¶21

OBD-EB.

¶22

Th:s pctition is filed by the pel.itionor-/vrife under Sectior-r lz of the Code ol Civil Proccdurtr. 1908 with a pra1,s. 1 r transfer O.P.No.1339 of 2022 cto r.he file of Additior rl Iiamil), Judge, Rernga Redd1. District at L.B.Nag,, r, to the lile of the Senior Civil Jrr,lgr:, Nirmal, Nirmal [] is trict.

¶23

As per the affidavit filed 1n su:,1 rort of the petition, t was her specific case that her rrrarr-iage was perf<rrnrr' 1 with the respondent on 1t'. 12.2016. It appears -ha1 the respondent 15 an emplr.yer: in New Jersey, l- nitr:d States of America. There erre troubles between he couple which lead the pr:titiort::r herein to hle zr cornltlaint against the respondent which is a subject rr.attcr of Crime No.87 of 2019. t. seems she

¶24

¶25

¶26

hled another case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide D.V.C.No.23 of 2021.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has alrcady filed another petition for maintenance. It seems the respondent frled O.P.No.1339 of 2022 un.der sections 13(l)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking divorce. As per the averments made in the said petition it seems that the couple last resided at Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District, within the jurisdiction of the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

The only ground for seeking transfer of O.P.No. 1339 of 2022 is inconvenience and expenses of the petitioner. Since the respondent is not an employee in this Country and staying in New Jersey it would be equally difficult for him to come all the way to come from New Jersey, United State of America and^proceed to Nirmal. In fact, the presence of the petitioner in O.P.No.1339 of 2022 is not required, if she engaged an

¶29

\ \

¶30

advoca to I l) 1rle repl1, and to cro:;s-exa. nirre the u,itncsses r:rt ma1' be p roduced by the rr--sp:,ndenl . At best, shr: hrrs to attend the Court for h,:r crossexamir:Latior r. Therelbre, the contention of th,_- ltetitioner cannot be crtnsidered for transfer of the ,t ase from Ranga Redrly District at L.B.Nagar to Nirnrzrl. At the same time, he petitioner is entitled to som€. [, ott:ction. 5. Urrdet t ne circumstances narrated hr r.,.rin above, learned Adrl it onal Family Judge, Ranga Redct,, District at L.B.Nagr r may not insist the presenr.,: of the petitioner t :rein in O.P.No.1339 of 2O')-2 cnt all other dates of arljournments except lor ttL,: (lrossexamination In addition to that the respondt:nt 1S directed to bear the expenses of the 1:,etitioner whenever tL:r attendance is required in the ,above referred divo rce petition.

¶31

With t: e above observations, this TrarLsler Civil Miscellaneor. s Petition is disposed of. Pending

¶32

¶33

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUry REGISTRAR (JD

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

't. The Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

¶40

The Senior Civil Judge Nirmal, Nirmal District.

¶41

One CC to SRl. A JAGAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CD Copies

kam

HIGH COI.JRT'

SSRN,J

DATED:10103,2023

ORDER

' "='=-:==-
, {2 t,,lt :: ra I6-
/. t
i-=
I r-t
Y::
01 I'IAY 20n
:\ ).
:) -'' )

¶52

TRCMP.No.3(l of 2023

¶53

DISPOSING O,= THE TRCMP

¶54

I
(^
L8 I ',. \t7

Vittal Shirisha v. Vittal Lingesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vittal Shirisha v. Vittal Lingesh Kumar

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

Yeluguri Suman Kumar Vs Yeluguri Srinivas

Bollu soma Laxmi , Varalaxmi Vs Bollu sudhir Kumar Yadav

Sandaragiri Swathi , K. Swathi Vs K. Ramu Goud

Kanuri Nagasiromani Vs Kanuri Rajasekhar

M. Naga Shravya Vs Mekala Karthik Reddy

M/s Strombus Infinium Initiatives Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri Krishna Vemuri