IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
Meghavaram Santhoshi Malathi Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
Meghavaram Ravindra Kumar – Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 135 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 406, 307 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Matrimonial disputes - Transfer of cases by wife - Whether permissible - Held, in respect of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of wife has to be considered by keeping in mind inconvenience if any expressed by respondent when request of petitioner/wife is considered for transfer of case from one Court to another Court - After considering fact that petitioner is a house-maker, having minor child, who is now depending upon her parents for her livelihood, as her petition seeking maintenance and complaining domestic violence in hands of respondent allowed by competent Court by granting maintenance and compensation, it is jut to consider her request to transfer divorce petition filed by respondent from Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, to Senior Civil Judge's Court, District - Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 from the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili of Vizianagaram District.
2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 09.04.2010, as per the Hindu rites, and caste customs, prevailing in their community at Gajuwaka of Visakhapatnam city. The petitioner alleged that on demand of the respondent, her parents have presented cash and gold towards dowry to the respondent, and after the marriage she joined the respondent at Gajuwaka, which is her in-laws house. The petitioner submits that one week after the marriage, the respondent got employment at Hyderabad and left the petitioner in her in-laws house at Gajuwaka and went to Hyderabad to attend his job, and after intervention of the elders, the petitioner was taken to Hyderabad by the respondent, where they both stayed at respondent brother’s house, which said to be questioned by the petitioner, and then the respondent alleged to have beat her. The petitioner alleged that the respondent addicted to drinking alcohol, and used to harass her, due to unbearable harassment of the respondent, on 03.01.2014 she went to her parents’ house at Bobbili town. The petitioner submits that she has got child, aged 9 years, now herself and her child are staying at her parents’ house at Bobbili of Vizianagaram District, where she lodged a report against the respondent, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is registered as CC No. 211 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. The petitioner also filed MC No. 7 of 2015 and DVC No. 25 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili against the respondent and his family members, which is said to be pending. The main contention of the petitioner is that as she filed maintenance case, domestic violence case, and lodged criminal complaint against the respondent, the respondent has filed FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam for dissolution of marriage, by decree of divorce, wherein she received notice. It is also the contention of the petitioner that now she is depending upon her parents, living at the mercy of her parents in Bobbili town of Vizianagaram District along with her child, aged 9 years, due to that it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam on every date of hearing, which is 120 kms from Bobbili town. She prays to transfer FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 from the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili.
3. Notice sent to the respondent served to his father, as per postal acknowledgment received by the Registry, but he has not chosen to contest the case by filing counter-affidavit, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel Ms. T. Sowmya Naidu, for the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has got ample power under Section 24 of CPC to transfer any case from the Family Court to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, having jurisdiction to try and dispose of the divorce petitions. She would further submit that petitions filed by the petitioner, seeking maintenance and also claiming compensation for damages, already allowed by the Court, but the respondent has not paid any amount to the petitioner towards maintenance, though he contested those cases by attending the Court at Bobbili town. She relied on the ratio laid down of this Court in Kaligithi Priyanka vs. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi in Tr. CMP No. 58 of 2019, dated 18.12.2019.
She prays to allow the petition.
6. Now the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is
The presence of a non-party respondent in the original case rendered the transfer petition not maintainable.
In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife should be considered when deciding whether to transfer a case from one court to another.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.