Allowed

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi v. R. Srikanth Nayak

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023TRCMP/321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition under CPC Section 24, moving a divorce case from Wanaparthy to Kukatpally. Relying on Apex Court precedent prioritizing the wife's convenience in matrimonial disputes, the court approved the transfer given the petitioner's proximity to Wanaparthy and financial dependency.

What did the court decide?

HM OP No.1 of 2022 on Senior Civil Judge Wanaparthy was withdrawn and transferred to VI Additional District Judge, Kukatpally.

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi Vs R. Srikanth Nayak — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO| 321 0F 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. R. [email protected], Wo R. Srikanth Nayak, D/o Mothilal, Aqe. 21 yeears, occ. Howe H.otd-, R/o. H No. 4_1315t2. trlirrr'anai N"ltJiliidji-r.r"-r" Blooms School, New Hafeezpet, Miyapur, UyOGraOaO _ S0OO49:

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

R Srikanth Nayak, S/o. R. Hanumanth Nayak, Age.34 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o. H.No. 41-225t2, Teacher Cotony, Wihiiartif, Town and District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

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 withdraw the H.M.O.P. No. of 2022 on the fire of the Hon'bre Senior civir Judge at wanaparthy and transfer the same to the Hon'bre Vr Additionar Fistrict Judgecum-Addl Family Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affid.avit filed in support of the petition, irre uigtr court may o" pLi."Jt" stay alllurther proceedings in H.M.o.p. No. 't of 2oi2 on tne rirJ oJ flie-Ho",or. Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy, pending disposal of may Tr. C.M.p.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri. AKI(AM ESHWAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of p. GANGA RAMI REDDY, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA^{RAO NAIDU}

¶20

TRANSFER CryIL MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION NO.321^{OF 2022}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent and she has Iiled this Transfer^Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of^{the Code of} Civil Procedure, 1908 with a^prayer to^transfer H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2022 from the file of the Senior^Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, to the file of the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Additional family Judge, Kukatpally, Rangareddy District.

¶23

In the affidavit filed by the^petitioner tn support of her petition, she has^{submittedthat her} on marrlage was performed with the respondent O9.O2.2O19 as per the Hindu customs^{and rituals at} Ketarabanda Thanda, Wanaparthy^{District.As per the} demand of the respondent and his family members,

¶24

¶25

the petitioner and her family members have arranged an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash apart from 16 tulas of gold, silver and house hold articles like electronics and furniture and they have performed the marriage by spending Rs.13,00,000/-. After the marriage, the petitioner^joined the respondent and their marriage was consummated. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a baby girl on O2.OL.2O2O. Subsequently, there were disputes arise between the couple due to adamant nature of the respondent and illegal demands made by him and his family members. trven though the matter was placed before the elders, the respondent did not evince interest to lead matrimonial life with the petitioner as such he has f,rled petition under Section 13(1)(14.) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i955 vide H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally.

¶26

The petitioner has submitted that the respondent filed the above said divorce petition only to harass her

¶27

¶28

and made her to travel from Hyderabad to Wanaparthy, which is distance about 2OO-250 K.Ms. The petitioner claims that she has to feed her two years baby and that she took shelter at the house of her parents and she has no means to travel from Hyderabad to Wanaparthy to contest the petition hled by the respondent. Thereby, she sought for transfer of the divorce petition from Wanaparthy to Kukatpally.

¶29

Having received the notice, the respondent made his appearance before this Court and filed the counter affidavit denying the material averments made by the petitioner in her affidavit. The respondent has submitted that from the beginning the petitioner behaviour was indifferent and she used to demald the respondent to shift his family from his parents to a separate house and also used to blackmail him with suicide attempts. She used to quarrel with the respondent and his family members without aly

¶30

proper reason and abuse them in a unparliamentary language. Due to the unbearable and cruel behaviour of the petitioner, he has frled the divorce case seeking divorce before the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The petitioner herein after receiving the notice in the said divorce case filed a complaint against the respondent and his family members at Miyapur Police Station. At the intervention of the elders, a memorandum of understanding is executed between the parties, according which, the petitioner is . agreed to receive Rs. 12,O0,OOO/- towards permanent alimony and to give custody of the daughter to the respondent. The petitioner received Rs.2,OO,OOO/- on the same day and the respondent has to pay the balance amount after obtaining divorce and all the articles of the petitioner were returned to her on 14.02.2022. The minor daughter of the respondent is in his custody. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner has been working as a Teacher in a private school on a

¶31

monthly salary of Rs. 15,000 /- and she^{is residing with} her grandparents at Ketarabanda Thanda, which^{is at} a distance of 28 K.Ms. from Wanaparthy but^{she has} misrepresented the facts. Thereby, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Heard both the parties.

¶33

Now the point that would emerge for consideration is:

¶34

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent from Wanaparthy to Kukatpally, Rangareddy District as sought for ?

¶35

As per the material averments made by both the parties, it seems that there is no dispute about the marriage between the parties. The petitioner has claimed that she was subjected to harassment^whereas the respondent claims that the petitioner used to behave indifferently and abused his family members.

¶36

Thereby, he was forced to file divorce case and at the intervention of the elders, a compromise was effected, according to which, he had paid Rs.2,OO,00O/- and agreed to pay the balance amount after grant of divorce. The respondent claims that the petitioner is working as a Teacher in a private school despite he could not produce any proof. The petitioner is aged about 21 years, according to her, she is leading her life depending on the mercy of her parents. Whereas the respondent claims that in view of the compromise he was already given custody of the minor child.

¶37

It is true that the parties did not produce any proof in respect of their respective contentions. However, the respondent claims that the petitioner is 1n working as a Private Teacher and residing Ketarabanda Thanda near Wanaparthy but he could not substantiate his contention by producing any acceptable evidence. The petitioner claims that she is

¶38

residing at New Hafeezpet, Miyapur, if^{she really} working at Wanaparthy, it would be difhcult^{for her to} attend the Court at Hyderabad and she may not^have hle such a request to transfer all the cases from Wanaparty to Hyderabad

¶39

In Judgment N.C.V.AISHWARYA a A.S.SARAVANA KARTHIK SIIAI, the Honlcle Apex

¶40

Court was pleased to obserwe the following

¶41

u .. . .. .. .. Giuen the preuoiling socio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, generallg, it is the uife's conuenience uhich must be looked at uhile considering transfer. "

¶42

By relying the Judgment referred supra, antd having regard 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

¶43

'^{zo:z scc oxr-tNu sc I 199}

¶44

interest of the respondent. The petitioner, who is aged about 2t yearc, being a mother of a small child without having any separate source of income cannot afford the travelling expenses. The respondent is not able to show that the petitioner 1S working asa Teacher and she is staying at the Village of Wanaparthy Town. Therefore, the request of the petitioner can be considered.

¶45

Under the discussion made hereinbefore, the petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, H.M.O.P.No.l of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the VI Additional District Judge-cumAdditional family Judge, Kukatpally, Rangareddy District

¶46

The concerned Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire case Iile, after duly indexed, within

¶47

¶48

¶49

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶50

Order, under the intimation to the other side.

¶51

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶52

stand ciosed. No costs

¶53

Note: This Order is modified vide Court Order dated 29.02.20U, passed in f.A.No.l of 2024, cofiected as^.,Vl Additional Oistrict Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Kukatpa[y" in the ptace of Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally. This Order is substitute the earlier order which was dispatched on 02.06.2023.

¶54

SD/-MOHD. SANULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTR]qR

¶55

SD/-MOHD. SANULLAH ANSARI AsstsrANT RfictsrRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcIoN o4fo.*

To,

] ]fe^{Se1io1 Civil Judgeat Wanaparthy} 2. The Vl Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally,

¶60

R.R.District

¶61

One CC to Sri. Akkam Eshwar. Advocate tOpUCl 1. 9n" QQ !o^{Sf. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Adriocate} [OeUCl 5. Two CD Copies

T J

A*+)i

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 210412023 DATED: 29.02.2024

¶66

iHE S14 14:
(
d.(
,
oo 2 B F1AB 2024
o
r,
* *
oF.spnrcH (:O

¶67

AMENDED ORDER

¶68

TRCMP.N o.321 ot 2022

¶69

ALLOWNG THE TR.CMP

¶70

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi v. R. Srikanth Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi v. R. Srikanth Nayak

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

J. Srinivasa Rao Vs J. Vittal Rao and 5 Ors.

Sri. Praveen Kumar Prabhala, Vs Pingle Vasundhara

M/s Unik Industries Vs M/s Amazon India Ltd. and 7 Others

Kasamalla Venkataiah Vs Gunreddy Ramulamma and another

Kisna Avenues Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharada Devi Kedia

Revuri Rama Devi Vs Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar