Nicadamus Sahaj Anvesh vs Yeddla Nikhitha Priyanka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9521 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

                   Tr.C.M.P. No.26 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the

petitioner, who is the husband, with a prayer to transfer O.P. No.8

of 2021, on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge at Gajuwaka to the Court of Additional Family

Judge at Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief averments in the Petition are that the petitioner is

the legally wedded husband of the respondent and their marriage

was solemnized on 03.10.2018 at Centenary Baptist Church,

Narsipatnam, according to the Christian Marriage rites and

rituals. The respondent, having stayed with him for a short period,

did not have proper physical relationship with him as such there

are no children out of their wedlock. The respondent used to

behave with him abnormally and cruelly. Under the

circumstances, the petitioner filed Divorce Petition i.e., O.P. No.8

of 2021 under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 on the

file of the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Gajuwaka. After that the respondent herein filed Maintenance

Case i.e., F.C.O.P. No.1573 of 2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on

AVRB,J Tr.C.M.P.No.26/2022

the file of the Court of Additional Family Judge at Visakhapatnam

as a counterblast to the Divorce Petition filed by the petitioner.

The issues involved and the parties being one and the same, both

the petitions may be tried together for convenience of the Court

and parties. Hence, this Petition.

3. Though there is service of notice on the respondent herein,

she did not appear to contest the matter.

4. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the

O.P. No.8 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of XIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gajuwaka is liable to be

transferred to the Court of Additional Family Judge at

Visakhapatnam where F.C.O.P. No.1573 of 2021 is pending?

5. POINT: Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would contend that though the distance between

Visakhapatnam and Gajuwaka is only 15 Kilometers but he filed

the present Petition to get the O.P. No.8 of 2021, filed by him, to

be transferred to the Court of Additional Family Judge at

Visakhapatnam where F.C.O.P. No.1573 of 2021, filed by the

respondent herein, claiming maintenance under Section 125

AVRB,J Tr.C.M.P.No.26/2022

Cr.P.C., is pending and to avoid any complication it is necessary to

grant the relief.

6. This Court has carefully looked into the facts and

circumstances. The subject matter in O.P. NO.8 of 2021 is the

prayer of the petitioner to grant a decree of divorce and the subject

matter in F.C.O.P. No.1573 of 2021, filed by the respondent, is a

claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C to award maintenance. In my

considered view, the subject matters are obviously different. A

claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be decided looking into the

alleged negligence attributed against the petitioner herein by the

respondent, as to her inability to maintain herself and the means,

if any, of the petitioner to maintain the respondent etc., The

petitioner has to establish different issues to get a decree of

divorce. Apart from this, for an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C, to

be passed by the Additional Family Judge at Visakhapatnam,

granting maintenance or refusing to grant maintenance, the

remedy is a Revision before the High Court. On the other hand, for

an order to be passed on the divorce petition by the XIII Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Gajuwaka, an Appeal lies to the

High Court. In my considered view, the contention of the petitioner

that O.P. No.8 of 2021 is to be tried along with Maintenance Case

AVRB,J Tr.C.M.P.No.26/2022

i.e., F.C.O.P. No.1573 of 2021, filed by the respondent, deserves no

merit. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that there is no question of getting any conflicting judgments

or orders as the subject matter in both the cases is totally

different. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant the relief as prayed for

by the petitioner.

7. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :09.12.2022 DSH