IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Maikya Prasuna, Srikakulam DT – Petitioner
Versus
Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Ramana Murthy, Visakhapatnam – Respondent
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.809, 816, 848, 852 & 855 of 2016 & 92, 160, 199, 232, 239, 240, 242, 258, 262, 273, 275, 284, 286, 290, 291,318, 373, 389, 397 & 421 of 2017
Decided On : 06-12-2018
ORDER :
All these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) to withdraw the Original Petitions pending on the file of different Courts shown in column No.2 and transfer the same to the Courts shown in Column No.3, on the ground mentioned in Column No.4 of the table given hereunder.
S No Transfer OP No. Court where petition is pending – Court where petition is to be transferred Transfer Petition by the wife or husband Relief claimed in petition sought to be transferred Ground for seeking transfer
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1 809/2016 FCOP No.82/2016
From-
Family Court, Visakhapatnam
To-
Family Judge, Srikakulam
Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act. -No male assistance for me to travel more than 120Km.
-Threat to life at the
-hands of the Respondent at Visakhapatnam. -Petitioner filed dowry harassment and restitution of conjugal rights cases at Srikakulam, hence the present petition can be transferred to srikakulam so that both cases can be heard together.
2. 816/2016 HMOP No35/2016
From -
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam
To-
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) (ib)Hindu Marriage Act -No source of income.
-Not keeping good
health, hence it would be difficult to travel.
3. 848/2016 O.P.No.596/2016
From -
Family Court, Secunderabad
To-
Family Court, Rajamahendravaram Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act -No source of income.
- Not keeping good health, hence it would be difficult to travel.
3. 848/2016 O.P.No.596/2016
From
Family Court, Secunderabad
To
Family Court, Rajamahendravaram Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act -Difficulty in travelling the distance between Rajahmundry and Seunderabad which is 400Km.
- Apprehension of danger in the hands of the Respondent.
4. 852/2016 O.P.No.179/2016
From -
Family Court, Warangal
To -
Family Court Nizamabad Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act. No independent source of income.
-Difficulty in travelling a distance of 220Km.
-DVC case pending in Nizamabad Court.
-Respondent is resident of USA, hence no prejudice if the matter is tried in Nizamabad.
5. 855/2016 O.P.No.345/2016
From -
Family Court, Vijaywada
To-
Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla Wife-Petitioner Decree declaring marriage of the petitioner to the Respondent as null and void under sec. 12(c) of Hindu Marriage Act. -Unable to travel a distance of 80Km.
-Apprehends threat to life.
-No means to meet the expenditure.
-DVC No. 20/201 pending at Bapatla, hence the present petition can also be transferred.
6. 92/2017 FCOP No.2049/2016
From-
Family Court, Ranga Reddy
To-
Family Court Anantapur Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act. -Difficulty in travelling a distance of 400Km.
- Respondent is residing in Banglore and distance between Bangalore and Anantapur is 200Km, hence it is convenient for Respondent also.
-Cr.No.2/2017 pending before Anantapur court.
7. 160/2017 O.P.No.153/2016
From-
Family Court, Karimnagar
To-
Family Court, Secunderabad Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act. -Unable to travel a distance of 200Km, without male assistance.
-Apprehends life threat at the hands of Respondent.
8. 199/2017 O.P.No.874/2016 From-
District Judge Eluru
To -
District Judge, Rajahmundry Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec. 10 of Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -No independent source of income.
-Difficulty in travelling a distance of 100Km.
-DVC SR.No. 1888/2017 pending in Rajahmundry, hence it is feasible to transfer the present petition to Rajahmundry.
9. 232/2017 HMOP No.53/2016
From-
Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku
To-
Sen
In re Under Article 143, Constitution of India [Keshav Singh v. Speaker
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. S.C. Sekar and Ors
Sheela Barse v. Union of India
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde
Guda Vijayalakshmi v Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry
Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v Chemical Construction Company
Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam
Lalita A. Ranga v Ajay Champalal Ranga
Archana Rastogi v Rakesh Rastogi
Leena Mukherjee v Rabi Shankar Mukherjee
Neelam Bhatia v Satbir Singh Bhatia
Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Gana Saraswathi v H. Raghu Prasad
Ram Gulam Pandit v Umesh J. Prasad
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena and others
K.A.Abdul Jaleel v T.A. Shahida
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others v State of Maharasthra and another
Jaishree Banerjee (Smt) v Abhirup Banerjee
Mona Aresh Goel v Aresh Staya Goel
Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another
Mangla Patil Kale v Sanjeev Kumar Kale
Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma
S. Durga Prasad v S. Raja Ramani
Eluri Raji Reddy and Others v State of Delhi and another
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel (2000) 9 SCC 255
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.