THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Tr.C.M.P.No. 75 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
This Petition is to transfer O.P. No. 905 of 2019 from the Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad to the Court of Additional Family Judge at Kukatpally.
The reasons stated for transfer is there are other cases pending at Kukatpally and it would be convenient to the petitioner to attend the Court thereat. Further, it is also stated that she has a daughter, who needs to be looked after.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner - wife. To support his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Ms. Shakuntala Modi v. Om Prakash Bharuka1, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay2, Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar3, Archana Singh v. 4Alok Pratap Singh and Rachna Kanodia v. Anuk Kanodia5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is travelling all the way from Visakhapatnam and as a matter of fact, the petitioner is working with a corporate hospital at Banjara Hills and it would not make any difference for her to come to the Court either at Nampally or 1 AIR 1991 SC 1104 2 AIR 2002 SC 396 3 JT 2000(10) SC 19 4 JT 2000(2) SC 440 5 2002(1) MLJ 86 (SC) 2 Kukatpally and that it is only to harass the husband, the present Petition is filed.
It may be noted, at the outset, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevancy. They are all cases where the Hon'ble Supreme Court appeared to have exercised its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Transfer Petition No. 204 of 2001 was allowed with a single line stating that the "Transfer Petition is allowed". In the said case, transfer was sought from Delhi to Kanpoor which is a separate city and the Court considered the factum that the wife has to travel to Delhi all the way from Kanpoor, where the convenience of the wife was the deciding factor. In Archana Singh's case (cited supra), transfer of the case was sought from Thane to Patna. Though there is no representation on behalf of the husband, the transfer petition was allowed on the short ground that the lady has to travel from Pune to Thana. In Shakuntala Modi's case, transfer was sought from Delhi to Dibrugarh. The Court had taken into consideration the fact that the respondent- husband did not have any financial difficulty and further directed the trial Judge to fix a firm date to avoid repeated visits of husband to Dibrugarh. In Neelam Kanwar's case, transfer was sought from Chandigarh to Mumbai. The convenience of the wife was taken into consideration, however, it may be noted that this is also a case of inter se transfer. Same is the case with Sumitha Singh's case (cited supra). In all the judgments, discretion of power was exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution read with Section 3 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transfer was sought from one State to other.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case where the OP is pending is the jurisdictional Court and the transfer is sought only on the ground of inconvenience of the petitioner - wife. If the inconvenience alone is to be taken into consideration, in every case wherever a woman is involved, territorial jurisdiction aspect is required to be ignored and such cases may be sought to be transferred as per their convenience. Such being not the position provided under Section 24 of the Code, this Court does not see any reason to order transfer of the case as sought by the petitioner.
Therefore, this Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 04th June 2021 ksld 4