Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
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
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh discussed the principles governing the transfer of matrimonial cases under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Fact of the Case:
Numerous transfer petitions were filed under Section 24 of the CPC, primarily by wives, seeking the withdrawal and transfer of matrimonial cases from various courts to courts closer to their place of residence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the right to access justice is a fundamental right and that the convenience of both parties must be considered when deciding whether to transfer a case.
Issues: 1. Whether the inconvenience of one party alone is sufficient grounds for transferring a matrimonial case under Section 24 of the CPC. 2. Whether the court can transfer a matrimonial case from a Family Court to a Senior Civil Judge's Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the inconvenience of one party alone is not sufficient grounds for transferring a matrimonial case under Section 24 of the CPC. The court must consider the inconvenience of both parties and weigh the competing interests to determine whether a transfer is warranted. 2. The court held that it cannot transfer a matrimonial case from a Family Court to a Senior Civil Judge's Court because Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial matters.
Final Decision: The court allowed some of the transfer petitions and dismissed others, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The court also issued guidelines for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC in matrimonial cases.
ORDER :
1. 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 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 200 Km, 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
Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram Wife-Petitioner Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act. Senior Civil judge at Tanuku has no jurisdiction to hear the petition.
No independent source of income.
Unable to travel a distance of 100Km.
10. 239/2017 O.P.No.593/2016
From
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur
T
AI
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.
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
