Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Meegada Lakshmi Usharani - Appellants
Vs.
Megada Venu Gopala Rao - Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 143 of 2019
Decided On : 03-12-2020
Transfer of Family Court Matter - The court allowed the transfer of a divorce petition from the Court of learned Family Judge to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge based on the petitioner's request citing distance, family responsibilities, and financial difficulties. The court relied on Section 24 C.P.C. and a previous case to justify the transfer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the respondent, requested the transfer of a divorce petition from the Court of learned Family Judge to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge due to distance, family responsibilities, and financial difficulties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found justification in the petitioner's request and allowed the transfer based on the reasons presented.
Issues: Transfer of divorce petition from one court to another based on petitioner's request citing distance, family responsibilities, and financial difficulties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 24 C.P.C. and a previous case (Kaligithi Priyanka v. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi, (2020) 3 ALD 87) to justify the transfer of the divorce petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 2109 of 2018 from the Court of learned Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kaikalur, Krishna District, for disposal in accordance with law.
ORDER :
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
1. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, once again. In fact, he was heard yesterday i.e. on 02.12.2020 and on account of want of appearance on behalf of the respondent, this matter was directed yesterday to be listed this day, to hear learned counsel for the respondent. This day also, none represented the respondent. Since this is a Tr. C.M.P. of the year 2019, relating to a Family Court matter, it is now being disposed of.
2. The request of the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent is to transfer F.C.O.P. No. 2109 of 2018 now pending on the file of the Court of learned Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, to the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kaikalur, Krishna District.
3. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was celebrated as per applicable rites and customs on 06.05.2001 at Annavaram. They have two sons Pavan Kumar and Damodar Chandu. The children are under the care and custody of the petitioner. There are reasons set out by the petitioner against the respondent and the fact remains that both of them have been living separately from each other.
4. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 62 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur, Krishna District, for maintenance and also gave a complaint to the police at Kalidindi Police Station, where Crime No. 31 of 2019 was registered for an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The petitioner has also given a complaint alleging domestic violence against the respondent and it is stated to be pending on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur.
5. The respondent instituted F.C.O.P. No. 2109 of 2018, which is now pending on the file of learned Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, for dissolution of marriage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, now informs that the petitioner has already appeared in the above Court pursuant to service of summons on 29.07.2019.
7. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that she is unable to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam on account of distance between these two places, which is about 300 k.ms and due to responsibilities she has to bear. Financial difficulties are also a reason pointed out by her and thus, requests to get the above matter transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Kaikalur. This place is stated to be convenient to her.
8. The respondent did not choose to file any counter questioning the reasons set out by the petitioner.
9. Apart from the distance between Visakhapatnam and Kalidindi, where the petitioner is living, family responsibilities she has been bearing, maintaining her two grown up children, have certain bearing for considering her request. The reasons so set out by the petitioner are not in any manner controverted or disputed by the respondent. Even otherwise on account of pendency of other matters in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kaikalur, the respondent should necessarily attend the above Court.
10. Viewed from such perspective, the respondent would not suffer any prejudice, if the divorce petition pending at Visakhapatnam is brought to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Kaikalur. The course to transfer a matter of this nature from the Court of learned Family Judge to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, is permissible under Section 24 C.P.C. in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Court. This question was considered in Kaligithi Priyanka v. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi, (2020) 3 ALD 87, where a similar request of the present nature was considered and it was held that divergence in forums cannot be reason for considering such request.
11. Therefore, finding justification in the request of the petitioner, this petition is allowed.
12. In the result, this Tr. C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P. No. 2109 of 2018 from the file of the Court of learned Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, is withdrawn and is transferred
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
