N. Sowjanya vs T. Vishnu Thej
2021 Latest Caselaw 1792 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                              TR.C.M.P.NO.187 OF 2019
ORDER:-

          This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer

of F.C.O.P.No.142 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of

Additional District Judge (Family Court), Ananthapuramu to the

Court       of     VI     Additional   District   Judge,    Kadapa,     where

RC.O.P.No.92 of 2019 is pending.

          The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the

marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on

13-02-2016 as per caste, custom and usage. Subsequently,

since the disputes arose between them, the respondent deserted

her. While so, on 31-08-2016 the respondent filed

F.C.O.P.No.142 of 2016 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage

Act seeking nullity of the marriage. On the other hand, the

petitioner filed RC.O.P.No.92 of 2019 before the VI Additional

District Judge, Kadapa, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Further, it is the case of the petitioner herein that she

being a lady, finding it very difficult to appear for each and every

adjournment at Ananthapur. A perusal of the record indicates

that the petitioner earlier filed TR.C.M.P.No.325 of 2017 before

this Court seeking the very same relief as sought in this petition.

After hearing both the parties and after going through the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni

Nagam vs. Harish Nagam1, this court held as under:-

"In view of the above guidelines, inconvenience to undertake journey may not be a ground to withdraw and

AIR 2017 SC 1345

transfer F.C.O.P.No.142 of 2016 from one Court to another and at best the witness can be examined by video conference. However, in view of difficulty expressed by the petitioner to undertake journey of 200 kilometers, the Additional District Judge, Family Court, Anathapur, is directed not to insist the petitioner to appear on every date of adjournment, except on the dates where her presence is required, record her evidence by video conference. If no facility of video conference is available, when the petitioner's presence is required, the respondent may be directed to deposit traveling, lodging, boarding and other incidental expenses vide guideline No.2 and furnish other details like address etc., to contact the petitioner vide guideline No.3. On such deposit, the petitioner shall appear before the Court on the date when her presence is required for cross-examination or for any other purpose. This direction would meet the ends of justice to serve the purpose.

With the above direction, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.

In view of the positive directions passed by this Court and

in view of the protection given to the petitioner in the above

order, this court is not inclined to allow this petition, particularly

in view of the above order passed by this court, dated 14-06-

2017 in TR.C.M.P.No.325 of 2017.

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J st 31 MARCH, 2021 TSNR