Allowed

Yanaganti, Vadapalle Gayatri v. Yanaganti Sharath Kumar

Telangana HC28 Mar 2023TRCMP/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a divorce case from Karimnagar to the Family Court at L.B. Nagar. Recognizing the hardship on the female petitioner who faced harassment and had pending maintenance and domestic violence cases elsewhere, the Court allowed the transfer for convenience and ease of access.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of F.C.O.P.No.51 of 2022 from the Family Court at Karimnagar to the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy district.

Yanaganti, Vadapalle Gayatri Vs Yanaganti Sharath… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH GOURT^FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 76 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yanaganti@ Vadapalle Gayatri, W/O Yanaganti Sharath Kumar, Residing at^Flat No. 302, 3rd floor, Uma Krishna Nilyam, Chanikyanagar, Chinnamushidiwada, Visakhapatnam

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Yanaganti Sharath Kumar, S/o Yanaganti Chandraiah H.No.4^{-69/1 1/1} Chandrapuri Colony Theegalaguttapali Karimnagar^PIN 505001 9966488044

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Coud may be^pleased to^transfer F.C.O.P. No. 51 of 2022 which is on the file of the Family Court^{of Karimnagarto} the Family Court, Rangareddy district at L.B nagar.

¶14

IA 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^pleasedto stay all further proceedings in filed F.C.O.P. No. 51 ot 2022 in the Family Court of Karimnagar, pending disposal of the Transfer C.M.P.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMESH BABU PEDAPALLI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.76 OF 2o23

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner against rhe respondent under Section 24 of C.P.C. u,ith a pra],er to transfer F.C.O.P.No.5l of 2022 from Famil,r. Courr ar Karimnagar to the Family Court at Ranga Recicl,v District :rt L. B. Nagar.

¶22

In the affidavit filed in support o[ peritron. rl]c petitioner has submitted that she was rnarried to rhc respondent on 2O.11.2015 at Arya Samajham, Kachcgr-rda. Hyderabad. By the time of her marnagc, rhe rcspon denr was doing business in Hyderabad. Soon after the marrrage they have obtained a flat on rent at Balarah Nivas, Saroornagar. They lead happy marital lile for thrcc (3) years. The parents of the petitioner acceptcci the marriaer and three years after the marriage, the petitioner insistccl her husband to inform about the marriagc to his l).rrL-nrs and his relatives. But, subsequentl,' thc father in lelr

¶23

¶24

ssRlv, J rr,CMP Nos.76 oJ 2O2O

¶25

pressurized the couple to shift to Karimnagar. They subjected the petitioner to all sorts of harassment. The respondent at the instance of his father brought her from Karimnagar to Hyderabad and asked hcr to go to the house of her parents at Vishakhapatnam. Thc petitioner filed a petition for maintenance vide M.C.No.l633 of 2022 wnich is pending on the file of Additional Family Court, Vishakhapatnam. She lodged a complairrt under the provisions of Domestic Violence Acl r,idc Crimc No. 133 of 2022 and under Section 498-.4 Indian pcnal Code and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act., which is ur.rclcr irrr.csrigation ar Women Police Station, Vishakhapatnam.

¶26

The petitioner further stated thar subsequently she received notices in F.C.O.p.No.51 of 2022 llled b.v the respondent for divorce at Karimnagar. Norr. the petitioner who is staying at Vishakhapatnam is not in a position to attend the Court at Karimanagar. Even her iather, u,ho is in his old age, is not in a position to accompan,r,, the petitioner. She cannot bear the expcnscs for the travel all the way from Vishakhapatnam to Karimnagar. The

¶27

¶28

ssRtv, J T..CItrP Nos.76 o! 2023

¶29

petitioner further submitted that she studied M.B.A. in Hyderabad and lead marital life for 3 years at Hyderabad. She warted to search for a job in Hyderabad. Therefore, with a hope of getting employment, she r.r,anted to shift from Vishakhapatnam to Hyderabad and stay and try to reconcile with her husband. Therefore, she prayed for transfer of divorce case liled b_v the respondent from Karimnagar to Hyderabad

¶30

Proof of service filed. The respondent rvho is served with notice, did not choose to attend the Court, thereby the respondent was sct cxp.lrte

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner is residing at Vishakhapatnam, il she ivar-r ts to get the transfer from Karimnagar to Vishakt'rapatnam, she has to approach the Honble Apex Court. Br-rt. in vierv of poor financial status, she calnot afford to .rpproach the Honble Apex Court. The petitioner, n,ho completed her MBA at H-yderabad, is trying to search for a job rn l-l-r'cierabaci and stay in the city so

¶32

¶33

ssRlv, J Tr.cMP Nos.76 of 2023

¶34

l t !i i tt II{Ia;

¶35

;, rs':. riit,].3rHru, kx::. Stt rt.l

¶36

&t...

¶37

that she carr try to reconcile with her husband and to defend divorce case filed b-v her husband. He has also submitted that the petitioner being a lady cannot travel all the way from Vishakhapatnarn to Karimnagar, there is frequent rail transporration from Vishakhapatnam to Hyderabad. But, if she is supposed to attend the Court at Karimangar again she need s to travel by road for more than 5 or 6 hours. Therefore. in vieu, of the above stated circumstances, the petitioner sor-tght for transfer of divorce petition filed b_v hcr husband from Karimnagar to Hyderabad.

¶38

Now the point for consideratior-r is

¶39

Whether there are grounds to trenskr of F.C.O.P.No.S1 of 2022 from the file of Famtly Court, Karimnagr to tLrc FomiLg Court, Ranga Reddg Distict at L.B.Nagar, as praged for ?

¶40

7. POINT:

¶41

The respondent u,ho is served s'ith the notice did not choose to attend this Court Lo oppose tl-re application. As per the rccord placcd b1 Lhe pr:titioncr, it seems she has

¶42

¶43

SSRN, J Tt.cMP Nos.76 o! 2023

¶44

; Ii I : I I

¶45

! I i I

¶46

aiready filed a domestic violence case and maintenance case and a complaint under the provisions of 498-A Indian Penal Code and all those case are pending at Vishahapatnam. The petitioner wanted to stay in Hyderabad for attending the case. In the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments, thc intcrest of women in a-11 matrimonial cases u.ill be the paramount aspect to be considered. In view of the above stated circumstances, the request of the petitioner for rransfer of divorce case filed by the respondent front l.'armily Court, Karimnagar to Famrl,t, Courl, Ranga Rcddy District at L.B.Nagar, can be considered.

¶47

B. In the result, the petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, F.C.O.P.No.51 of 2022 on the file of Famill' Court, K:rrimnagar is withdrawn and transferred to the lile of Familr Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

¶48

Tl-re conccrncd Court is herebv directed to transmit the entire carse lile, alter duly indexed, within (4) four

¶49

¶50

ssRlg J Tr.cMP Nos.76 oJ ZO23

¶51

weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, under the

¶52

tntrmation to the other side.

¶53

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if arry, shall stand closed.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

Sd/. A. V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS/RAR / //

¶56

L/ SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

The Family Court of Karimnagar

¶59

The Family Court, Rangareddy district at L.B nagar.

¶60

One CC to SRl. RAIvIESH BABU PEDAPALLI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

¶62

¶63

Two CD Copies pr vr{ \ v

( [-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2810312023

ORDER

TRCMP.No.76 of 2023

Si;\I
c (,) "- 'i
i: 20 fiirH20n
.., .| J
',

¶70

ALLOWING THE TR.CMP

¶71

*
N
19

Yanaganti, Vadapalle Gayatri v. Yanaganti Sharath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yanaganti, Vadapalle Gayatri v. Yanaganti Sharath 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

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s.R.G.R.Siddanthi Educational Society

Kamini Devi Vs S. Hanumanth Reddy

Yellendula Venkateshwarlu and 3 others Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited

Dr. D Bhanu Prakash Vs Shareef Hussain

K. Suryamani Vs K. Janardhan Reddy

H. Shereesha Kumari Vs Tankara Rajeshwar Sharan