Allowed

Pabbathi Jyothi v. Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023TRCMP/406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, directing the Family Court at Khammam to transfer a pending divorce petition to the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The court prioritized the petitioner's convenience as a government employee with two children over the respondent's ground of inconvenience.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Domestic Proceedings No. 263 of 2017 from the Family Judge, Khammam, to the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is ordered.

Pabbathi Jyothi Vs Devireddy Ravindranath… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 4OO OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pabbathi Jyothi, Wo-Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy, D/o.Late Pabbathi Dayakar, Age. 48 years, Occu.Employee, R/o.404, Jayashekhara Angaraka Nilayam, Adibatla, Ranga Reddy District - 501510.

¶9

...'ETIT'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy, S/o.Yogi Reddy alias Yogaiah, Age. 45 years, Occu. Nil, R/o-H.No.43-136-9, Krishna Hotel centre, Ajith singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District..

¶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 transfer the D.OY.No,263 of 2017 from Honourable Family Court-cum-Addl. District Judge, at Khammam to Honourable Court of Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 all further proceedings in D.O.P.No.263 of 2017 on the file of Honourable Family Court-cum-Addl. District Judge, at Khammam

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONC URABLE SRI JUSTICE^{SAMBASIVA IT.6.0 NAIDU}

¶20

TRAN SFER )N/IL MISCELLANEOUS^{PETITTONNO.4()(; Or- 2022}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Tl-ris 1el,ition is hled by the^{petitionerT'r,ife undcr} Section 24 t1' the Code of Civil^{Procedure, l!)tl8 with a} prayer t,r tr lsler D.O.P.No.263 ol 2Ol7^{fi'orr thr: hle of} the Famil' .ludge-cum-Additional^{l)istri<:t'Judge,} Khammirm t,t the filc of the^{FamilyJudge, Fl,rngareddy} District at I .I3.Nagar.

¶23

In sup p,trt of the petition, the^{petrtiont:.-has filed} her own aff lavit with the following^avermcnl.ri

¶24

The p:titioner has filed^{D.O.P.No.2(>.)} of^2Ol7 before the I amity Judge, Khammam,^{for clissolu'-ionof} the marrial e under Section 10(¹ )^(x) of^{Dir', rrc} :^Act, 1869. The ,etitioner has claimed that she^{trr:longs to} Hindu comt runit5r whereas the respondent lrt'rein is^a Christian b' religion. Prior to her malriagt:^with the respondent, she got married with one Sri K.Arlil^I''.urnar

¶25

¶26

-III

¶27

and out of the wedlock,^{they were blessed with two} children. Later, the said^{Sri K.Anil Kumar died due to} ill-health. Thereafter,^{the respondent contactedher} through Bharat Matrimony^{and made her to believe} that he was unmarried and^{he is a legal practitioner} and that made her to^{give consent for marriagewith} him with a dowry of^{Rs.1O,O0,OO0/-.The marriage} between the petitioner and^{the respondent was} performed on 03.08.20 15 at Miryalaguda^{as per the} customs prevailing in Christian^community.

¶28

The petitioner has claimed that at^{the time of} marriage, she gave an amount of^{Rs.10,O0,00O/-} towards dowry as^per the^{demand of the respondent.} The respondent under^{variouspretextskept the} petitioner herein at Miryalaguda and he^{used to} shuttle between Miryalaguda^{and Vijayawada.The} petitioner has alleged that whenever^{the respondent} came to Miryalaguda, he used^{to abuse her and her} children in lilthy language. It^{seems that the petitioner}

¶29

filecl D^tl.F 26:\ of 2Ol7 on 26.O3.2o7''/ for riissolution of her ma rLage with the respondenl ancl it is still pending or :he hle of the Family Ju<lge, l(.lrarnmam. The pet.itir n:r has submits that ret:ent[rr she was transferred fr-om Khammarn to Hyderabad, ,l.rereby, it has bcc om : difficult to her to attend ttL,: c;rse at Khamn r:un ari such she sought for translcr <,f rlivorce petition lror r Khammam to Hyderabad.

¶30

The re ;pondent made his appearance :,r'[olc this Court, he l eing an Advocate, contestr'd thr case inperson and rpposed this petition.

¶31

The re;pondent, party-in-person, has s;r-rbrnitted that he is a resident of Vijayawada ald I c is an Advocate by profession. It would be difficult frr him to attend the case frled by the petitioner ltr.rein by travelling fr ,nt^yi.l.r"wada to Hyderabad fitr all the dates of hr l-ing and sought for dismiss,al oi the petltlon

¶32

'-\

¶33

Hearcl t oth the parties.

¶34

¶35

6 Now, the point^{for determinatron rs:}

¶36

Whether the request^{of the petitioner seeking} transfer of D.O.P.No.263^{of 2Ol7 from the file of} the Famity Judge,^{Khammam to the file to the} Family Judge, Rangareddy^{District at L'B'Nagar,} can be considered^?

¶37

As per the^{material averments made by the} petitioner in her affidavit^{and as per the arguments} advanced by learned^{counsel for the petitioner, it was} specifically^{pleaded that the petitioner is havingtwo} children through^{her former husband, who is now no} more. Later, the^{respondent was introducedto her} ttrrough Bharat Matrimony^{and then,she got married} him. The^{petitioner states that the respondentmade} her to believe^{that he is an Advocatewith sufficient} properties at Vijayawada^{and made her to give consent} for second marriage^{with him butsubsequently} without taking her^{to Vijayawada, he used to visit the} petitioner and her children^{once in a week i'e'' at the} week end but whenever^{he came to Khammam, he}

¶38

)

¶39

used to at)us^{her and her children in filthv l:rrgrt:rge'} The responde^{rt is denyingtheseallegations}

¶40

Frorr^{t rt'above, it istranspar(-'nt[Lrat the} marriage^{llet'ztenthe petitioner and the respondent is} not in clispt^{tt:. Similarly, it isalso clear lhat the} petit.ioner^{fil, d D.O.P No'263of 2Ol7 befor: Fz'milv} Judge, Kharr^{rram, seeking for dissolutionof trLarriage} under thc^{prr vLsjonsof Divorce Act, 1869'}

¶41

g . Lear;red :ounsel^{for the petitione rve trt:m:ntly} arglled that^{r he rs a Governmentemployt:eantl in view} of her transft^{r. presentlyshe is rbsidingat H5'rierztbad'} It would^{tre r ifficult for her to go to Khammarr:'all the} way from^{H1 derabad, thereby, sought lbr t.r:rr:lsler of} divorce^{petit on. Per contra, the respondsn[rlrp1rosed} the request^{< n the ground that it would be diIIlcultfor} him to atl,en,^{the Court at Hyderabad' Admittedll''the} petition {iier by^{the petitioner fordissotr-rtion of} marriage is^{pending inKhammam,which L:; rrot a} native place^{of the respondent,anyway he hits to}

¶42

¶43

attend the Court at Khammam by travelling from Vijayawada to Khammam. Since the petitioner is a Government employee with two children, AS rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be more difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court at Khammam for prosecuting the divorce petition.

¶44

In U. Judgment N.C.V.AISHWARYA A.S.SARAyANA KARTHIK S.EIAI, thc Hon'lcle Apex

¶45

Court was pleased to observe the following:

¶46

o .. . ... ... Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, generallg, it is the utife's conuenience uhich must be looked at uthile consideing transfer."

¶47

By relyrng the Judgment referred supra, and having regard to t.Ile facts and circumstances of this case and arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that in matrimonial disputes, the

¶48

'^{2ozz scc oNLnmsct t99}

¶49

¶50

intct'est^{ol' rv ftrnav be givcr-r PrioritYrathcr lllarL the} contest^{of thtrcspondent. Therefore'this TrarL:; ler Civil} rr:ques^{1. olthe} Miscellant:ou;^{Petition fiied with a} petitioner^{forlrernsferof her case from Khzunmamto} Hyderabad^{c ri be considered}

¶51

12.^{Uncler the discussionmadehereinbt:lirre'the} pett tron 1S allowed.^{As aconsequence} the reof, D.O.P.No.26^{\ of 2OI7 on the file of the Faml'"Jurdge-} District^{Judge' Khamrllixn'1s} cum-Additio^lirl withdraut-i^{Lr-d transferredto the hle of t.:'lt: Family} Judge,^{Ranl a"eddyDistrict at L'B'Nagar}

¶52

hereby^{drt'':lct':d to} The^{c lrlcerned Court1s} transmit^{thr ontire case file' after duly incle>:t:'1'''rdthin} twoweeksirlmthedateofreceiptofacc'1:'yofttris Order,^{undt r the intimationto the other side'}

¶53

Penclir^{g miscellaneousapplications'if any' shall} stand^{close I No costs'}

¶54

s D/.^P fJt, u1lf$rB[ESH?A

,/TRUE^COPY/I

siEcnoJ/oFFlcER

To,

1 2 3^{li??ill!,&!lL"'fr} I'rvo^{C I) ct rti s0t3,,oi'5a'i$f i'fl 5ni$[3ll.,ro""r}

I]M

HIGH CO JRT

DATED:0^,.t03t2023

ORDER

TRCMP.No 406 ot 2022

,iE S141.i
?,
t t:l
1E ApR Z[n
,..i
..,,,,.rt.

¶66

ALLOWING IHE TRCMP WITHOUT CI )STS

¶67

(;G
t
))
,lq
IM

Pabbathi Jyothi v. Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabbathi Jyothi v. Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy

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

Union of India Vs Rayilla Sarangapani and 2 Others

Chevuti Sathanna Chevutu Sathanna and another Vs Bukya Deshya and another

M.Uma, , Uma Maheswari, And Another Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt., LtdAnd 3 Others

B. Subash Vs G. Raju

P. Narsinga Rao Vs Smt Gokari Kamalamma

Alakunta Anjamma And 3 Others Vs Mr. K. Palanivelu and another