HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
TR.C.M.P.NO.306 of 2022
ORDER :
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of C.P.C. against the respondent with a prayer to transfer the divorce O.P. filed by the respondent herein vide O.P.No.54 of 2022 from Family Court, Nalgonda to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.
2. The petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this petition, their marriage was performed on 20-03-2016 at Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta. The petitioner has claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents have presented a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 36 tulas of gold a part from Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of house-hold articles. The petitioner joined the respondent who was doing software job at Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that she was subjected to the harassment by the respondent and her in-laws on the ground that she was not blessed with children and she brought less dowry. The petitioner further claims that when the couple approached the Doctor at OASIS Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, the Doctors found 2 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022 defect in both the couple and advised them to explore the possibility of having children through IVM. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner spent about Rs.20,00,000/- for the treatment with a hope that this will settle her conjugal life.
3. The petitioner is blessed with a male child, who was aged about 3 years at the time of filing the petition. But there was no change in the respondent and the petitioner was continuously harassed, thereby she filed a complaint before police, Suryapet, which was registered as Cr.No.234 of 2022 against the respondent and his family members. The police have filed a charge sheet against the respondent and his family members vide C.C.No.867 of 2022. The respondent filed a petition seeking divorce before Family Court, Nalgonda, which was registered vide O.S.No.54 of 2022. It seems the petitioner has also filed another criminal case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a petition seeking maintenance which are pending before the Courts at Suryapet. The petitioner states that the distance between Nalgonda and Suryapet is about 60 kilometers. The petitioner cannot travel from Suryapet to Nalgonda for attending the above divorce petition, thereby sought for transfer of the case filed by the respondent from Nalgonda to Suryapet.
3 SSRN,J
TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022
4. The respondent made his appearance before the Court, filed an elaborate counter disputing all the averments made by the petitioner.
5. The respondent has claimed that he never received any dowry or other customery gifts as alleged by the petitioner herein. Having admitted the marriage with the petitioner and while denying the other allegations, the respondent has claimed that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that she cannot produce 'Oocytes' and she cannot bear children naturally, thereby there was a divorce by mutual consent after the birth of male child. He has also claimed that the petitioner lodged a police complaint only after she received summons in the divorce petition filed by the respondent herein. The respondent further claims that the petitioner deserted him after the birth of male child and she started behaving as if she does not need the conjugal life with the respondent and she herself left the matrimonial life. The respondent has filed medical record in support of his claim that the petitioner undergone IVF and an Egg Donar procedure for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was spent by the respondent. As against the allegation made by the petitioner that she need to attend the breast feeding child, the respondent claims that the 4 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022 counter filed by the petitioner herein in the divorce case clearly shows that she sought for a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards the Play School fee of her child. It clearly indicates that there is no such breast feeding child with the petitioner and while denying the other averments made in the petition, the respondent sought for dismissal of the application.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether there are any grounds for transfer of the divorce case filed by the respondent from Suryapet to Nalgonda ?
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a lady with a kid cannot attend the Court at Nalgonda to defend the divorce petition filed by the respondent herein. She is not in a position to bear the expenditure. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the CD's filed by the respondent clearly demonstrates as to how the petitioner left the matrimonial home of the respondent. The medical record produced by him would show that all the allegations about the expenditure alleged to have been made by the parents of the petitioner is false. The respondent himself spent the amount and in fact there was a defect with the petitioner who cannot gave birth to a baby in a natural process. However, after the birth of 5 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022 male child, there was a change in the attitude of the petitioner and she herself left the house of respondent. Since there is a desertion by the petitioner for a considerable period, the respondent was forced to file divorce case. The petitioner herein only to harass the respondent filed number of criminal cases. While relying on a Judgment of this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.354 of 2017, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the distance between Nalgonda and Suryapet is not more than 60 kilometers, the petitioner need not attend each and every adjudication at Nalgonda. The parties if require can explore the other possibilities of conducting a trial with the help of video conference. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.
9. It is true, the petitioner is a lady with a small kid but that may not be a strong ground for seeking transfer of a case when there is a material to believe that the couple last resided at Suryapet. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner itself, it shows that she and respondent lived together at Nalgonda till she left the house of the respondent. It may be true that there are other criminal cases filed by the petitioner, the petitioner as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent need not attend all the adjournments at Nalgonda and at best, she may 6 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022 have to attend the case for reconciliation process and giving instructions to the learned counsel for conducting cross- examination of respondent and his witnesses. The petitioner claims that she cannot afford to bear the expenses for attending the Court at Nalgonda. The petitioner is a lady without any employment. Therefore, the respondent shall bear the expenses of traveling etc., of the petitioner and the persons accompanying her for attending the Court at Nalgonda. With this observation, the petition can be disposed.
10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to pay the expenses that may be incurred by the petitioner for attending the Court at Nalgonda for defending the divorce case and also the expenses of the person, who escorts the petitioner from Suryapet to Nalgonda.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 05.01.2023
PLV
7 SSRN,J
TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022