Allowed

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari v. Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023TRCMP/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 CPC for transferring a divorce petition from Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet to Family Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner, suffering health issues, sought relief due to distance. The respondent consented to the transfer. The Court allowed the petition and transferred the case.

What did the court decide?

The High Court withdrew and transferred the divorce petition filed by the respondent to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari Vs Kamsani… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IVONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 48 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt.Kamsani @ Morsu Santhosh Kumari, Wo Kamsani Prashanth Reddy, D/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ. Nil, Presently residing at H.No.1-7-24, Shanthinagar Colony, Beside SBI Bank, Rajendranagar, Hvderabad-500030

¶9

...pETrroNER/pETlroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

Kamsani Prashanth Reddy, S/o Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-55, Potharam(S), Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet Diskict (ErstwhileKarimnagarDistrict)-505472

¶12

...RESpoNDENT/RESpoNDENT

¶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 Order withdrawal of the H.M.O.P.No. 207 of 2O22 trom the court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet and transfer the same to the court of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No. 2O7 ot 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, pending final disposal of the main Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. M. V. RA, KUMAR GABRIEL

¶18

The Court qra-de the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.48 OF 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This petit ir.rn has be cn liled by the petitioner against the respondenl,/ husband undcr Section 24 of C.P.C. with a praver to transfer the petition filed by respondent vide l.i.\4.O.P.No.2O r' ctl .2O)). lr-onr tl-re lile of Senior Civil .Jttdge ar Srddipet to ["amrlr Courri. Cit.1'Crvil Court, Hyderabad

¶22

As per the afficlavit filcd in support of the petition, it seems, the marriage o[ the pctitioner was performed with ttre respondent on 27.O5.2011 at NIRD Campus, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad as per Hinclu Rites and Customs. Al thc timc ol marriage,- the parents of the petitron preserrted gold ancl household articlc-s worth Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent and spend the marriage in a grand scaie by spendir.rg Rs.5,O0,0OO/-. They have also presented a house plot o[ 200 sq.yards by spending Rs.5,OO,O0O/-. The petitioner joined the respondent and both of therr residcd at Shanthinagar Colony,

¶23

¶24

TT.CMP No.48 oJ 2023

¶25

Rajenderanagar, Ranga Reddy District. She lead^happy marital life up to 2014. Thereafter, the^{respondent started} harassing the petitioner by demanding additional^dou'rvol Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶26

The petitioner has further claimed that the respondent subjected her to humiliation and harassed her on the ground that she is suffering from Vitiligo (Bolli) and informed the petitioner that he wanted to go for another marriage. A panchayath was raised before the elders and rn the said panchayath, the respondent gave an undertaking that he will look after the petitioner properly, but continued the same harassment. Thereby the petitioner suffered miscarriage in August, 2017, thereby she has undergone surgery on 16.08.2O17 at Rainbow Hospital. Due to post complications of the surgery, she had to undergone another surgery in October, 20 17. But, the respondent without supporting her, continued the harassment and got issued legal notice as if he wanted to restore the conjugal rights. The petitioner gave reply to the said notice on 07.O1.2018.

¶27

¶28

TT.CMP No.48 oJ 2023

¶29

4 The petitioncr furthcr- statcd that subsequently, she received notice and rerrlrzccl that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2O2O under Secrion 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act ior divorce.^'lhcreby, the petitioner made her appearance bcfore the Scnior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. Subsequentlv in view ol- reorganization of the Judicial Districts, the case lilcd br thc respondent was transferred from Senror Civil .Judgc.. lluzLrrabad to Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet and renumbcred :rs ll.M.O.P.No.207 of 2022

¶30

The petil,ioner has submitted that she has love and affection towards the respondent and wanted a change in the respondent. But, she received notice in the above referred divorce petition. Shc is not in a position to travel to Siddipet, th ereb,y she sought for transfer of the above referred divorce petition to Family Court, City Civil Court, Hvderabad.

¶31

Notice belore admission u,as ordered.

¶32

The respondent appeared before the Court.

TT.CMP No.48 of 2023

I I

I iII t I

8. Heard both parties

¶38

9 Now the point for consideration is :

¶39

Whether there are ground.s fo, transferring H.M.O.P.No.2O7 of 2022 from the fiLe of Senior CiuiL Judge, Siddipet to the file of Familg Court, Citg Ciuil Court, Hyderabad, as praged. for ?

¶40

1O POINT

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the petition averments has submitted that the petitioner being a lady, suffering with health issues and who is taking shelter at her aged parents, is not in a position to attend the court at siddipet and sought for transfer of HMop to Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶42

The respondent who appeared before the Court through his counsel reported no objection to the said request. Therefore, in view of no objection reported by the respondent, there is no necessity to discuss the issues raised by the petitioner in the affidavit and the petition can be disposed.

¶43

¶44

TT.CMP No.48 of 2O23

¶45

In the result, tlrt petitron is allos'ed. As a consequence, thereol, H.N{.O.P.No.207 ol 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet is withdrawn arrd transferred to the filc of f:amily Court, City Civil Court, Hvderabad

¶46

1 3 . The concerned Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire case fi1e, after dtrlv indexed,^{n'ithin (4) four} r,",eeks from the datc of rcceipt of this Order, under^the intimation to the other side

¶47

As a sequel, pending N4iscellaneous Applications,^if

¶48

any, shall stand closed

¶49

SD/- B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY/I

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Senior Civil^{Judge,SiddiPet} 2 The Familv Court Judqe. Citv^{Civil Court, Hyderabad} 3 one cc td sRl. PAPAIAH^{PEDDAKULA, Advocate} [oPUCl 4 One CC to SRl.^{M. V. RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL, Advocate} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310412023

ORDER

Tr.CMP.No.48 of 2023

-:-
iLt.}$..<br>.$
-o<br>. ,..:

¶61

ALLOWING THE Tr.CM.P

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

Cot14
ffiFt

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari v. Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari v. Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

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. Gannamaneni Chandrika Vs Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

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