Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Palaparthi Durga @ Singam Durga – Appellant
Versus
Palaparthi Chiranjeevi – Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 318 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022
TRANSFER OF CASE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 19 - TRANSFER OF CASE FROM ONE COURT TO ANOTHER - CONVENIENCE OF WIFE - COURT CONSIDERED THE CONVENIENCE OF THE WIFE AND CHILD AND TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO A COURT NEARER TO HER RESIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a woman, filed a petition for transfer of a Hindu Marriage Act case from Addanki to Pithapuram, citing the inconvenience of traveling 350 kilometers to attend court proceedings while working and caring for her four-year-old child. The respondent, her husband, opposed the transfer, arguing that he would have to travel 400 kilometers from Hyderabad to Pithapuram, and that the petitioner could afford to travel to Addanki.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the convenience of the wife and child should be considered in matrimonial proceedings, and that the respondent did not make a strong case for denying the transfer. The court noted that the respondent admitted to residing in Hyderabad, and that he would have to travel a long distance regardless of whether the case was in Addanki or Pithapuram.
Issues: 1. Whether the case should be transferred from Addanki to Pithapuram for the convenience of the wife and child. 2. Whether the respondent's objection to the transfer was tenable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the composite High Court at Hyderabad in V. Sailaja vs. V. Koteswara Rao, which held that the High Court has the power to transfer cases under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that the convenience of the wife can be considered. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Rachna Kanodia vs. Anuk Kanodia and Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay, which emphasized the importance of considering the convenience of the wife in matrimonial proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the transfer petition and directed that the case be transferred from Addanki to Pithapuram for the convenience of the petitioner and her child.
JUDGMENT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, with a prayer to transfer the said H.M.O.P. to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.
2. The facts which lead to the filing of this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, in brief, are that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 24.04.2016 at Gollaprolu Village, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 13.07.2017 by name Sudheeksha, aged four years. After the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Konanki Village of Martur Mandal. But, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment to bring additional dowry. The mediations that were held to resolve the issue proved to be futile. Hence, on 07.08.2022 the petitioner filed a report before Gollaprolu Police Station, which is the subject matter in F.I.R. No.126 of 2002 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2002 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, with all false and baseless allegations. The petitioner is contesting the same. On account of nature of the job of the petitioner, she is not able to attend the Court at Addanki. The distance between Addanki and Gollaprolu is 350 K.Ms. The petitioner being a woman and having a kid of four years old cannot go to Addanki on her own without any assistance. Petitioner is working as Mahila Police in Grama Sachivalayam at Gollaprolu since 2019. It would be convenient for the petitioner to defend the proceedings at Pithapuram, which is a distance of 10 K.Ms. from Gollaprolu. Hence, the petition.
3. The respondent got filed a counter denying the allegations against him and resisting the prayer of the petitioner. His contention in substance is that there is no dispute about his marriage with the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were blessed with a child on 13.07.2017. The allegations attributed against the respondent for demand of dowry and harassment are all false. Petitioner never lived at her matrimonial home at Konanki Village. She did not show any love and affection towards her in-laws. Respondent is working as a private employee in Hyderabad. Petitioner could live with the respondent at Hyderabad for only few months and harassed him mentally. Later, she left Hyderabad along with her child including household articles and started living with her parents. The mediations held by him proved to be futile. Hence, he filed H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki. Petitioner is drawing more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Her brother is A.C.T.O., who is assisting her. The respondent is at Hyderabad. The distance from Hyderabad to Pithapuram is more than 400 K.Ms. and he cannot undertake such a long distance, as such, petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Now in deciding the petition, the point that arises for consideration is whether the H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki is liable to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District?
Point:-
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend according to the averments in the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend according to the counter.
7. During reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision in V. Sailaja vs. V. Koteswara Rao AIR 2003 AP 178.
8. As seen from the copy of H.M.O.P., the respondent herein in the capacity of the petitioner shown his address as at Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasm District. Admittedly, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in view of Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, where a petition under the Hindu Marria
In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife and child should be considered when deciding whether to transfer a case from one court to another.
In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife should be considered when deciding whether to transfer a case from one court to another.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure and the consideration of convenience in matrimonial proceedings, including the use of vide....
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
