Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
Smt Thummuru Mani Priya – Appellant
Versus
Sri Thummuru Lazarus Reddy - Respondent
Trans. Civil Misc.Petition No. 71 of 2024
Decided on : 01-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M KISHORE BABU
For the Respondent: VENKAT CHALASANI
IMPORTANT POINT
A party cannot unilaterally choose a court based on dissatisfaction; valid grounds must be established for a transfer under CPC Section 24.
Headnote:
Transfer - Family Law - CPC Section 24 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC regarding the transfer of cases, emphasizing the need for valid grounds for transfer and the principle of avoiding forum shopping, ultimately denying the transfer request.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer a divorce petition from the Principal Family Court to an Additional Family Court, citing loss of belief in the former due to various issues, including the imposition of costs and lack of representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide substantial reasons for the transfer and that the Principal Family Court was now presided over by a woman judge, dismissing the notion of losing faith in the court.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had valid grounds to transfer the divorce petition to another court and if the request constituted forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that cases involving the same parties and interdependent issues should be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions, as established in prior case law.
Result: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
I have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.Venkat Chalasani.
2. This is wife’s petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of OP.No.802 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District Court-cum-Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna Judicial District to XIV Additional District Court-cum-Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna Judicial District, on the ground that she is facing some problems, and other reasons she lost her belief about justice in the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, due to that she intended to change the Court and seeking for transfer of the case. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Additional Family Court, Vijayawada is presided by woman Judge. She prays to allow the petition.
3. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent/husband that he filed OP No.802 of 2016, pending on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking for divorce, whereas the petitioner/wife filed OP No.1379 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was pending before Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. The respondent submits that in OP No.802 of 2016, the enquiry already commenced, and the evidence of the respondent was re-opened for further crossexamination on imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner/wife. It is also the contention of the respondent that the allegation of the petitioner that she lost belief about justice in the Court, where divorce petition is pending is not tenable, and she cannot be allowed to make any allegation against the Presiding Officer without any basis. He submits that the Presiding Officer of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada where OP No.802 of 2016 is pending transferred to some other Court, and now female Judge is presiding the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. He prays to dismiss the petition.
4. The petitioner in person would submit that she is facing some problems in prosecuting OP No.802 of 2016 before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, as no opportunity was given to her to proceed with enquiry. She would further submit that no Advocate is coming forward to defend her case at Vijayawada. She would further submit that she filed a petition before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking for interim maintenance, which was not considered, due to that she lost belief in the said Court that she will get justice. She prays to allow the petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner, and she has not specifically stated why she lost belief in the Court, where divorce petition is pending. He would further submit that when the respondent filed OP No.802 of 2016, seeking for divorce, the petitioner/wife also filed FCOP No.1379 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights, which case was pending before Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, due to that the respondent filed Tr.CMP No.50 of 2021 before this Court, which was allowed by transferring the restitution of conjugal rights petition, filed by the petitioner to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with divorce petition filed by the respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner also filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance from the respondent, vide FCOP No.1660/2018, which case is also pending before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. He prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 29.01.2015 in a hotel at Vijayawada, as per Christian rites, tradition and customs prevailing in their community, and then the petitioner blessed with a male child on 07.11.2015. Due to matrimonial disputes, the respondent filed OP No.802 of 2016, seeking for divorce on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, whe
