Ambujalapu Vara Lakshmi vs Ambujalapu Siva Prasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 282 AP

                                       1



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

   TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.7 OF 2022


ORDER:-

      This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in

H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Pithapuram, with a prayer to transfer the same to the Court of

Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, insofar as

necessary for the purpose of deciding this application, is that the

respondent is her husband. Their marriage was performed on

07.03.2015 according to the Hindu Marriage rites and customs.

The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for some

period. Later, the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the

respondent and his family members. When the respondent alleged

that she failed to get pregnancy, both of them went for doctor

consultation at Apollo Hospital and Jagruthi Specialty Pathology

Laboratory. They collected blood samples and gave a report

stating that the petitioner is suffering with HIV positive and the

result of the respondent was found to be negative. Basing on the

same, the respondent filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The allegations of

the respondent are all false. Petitioner filed O.P.No.3 of 2019, on

the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili, for restitution of

conjugal rights. She also filed M.C.No.24 of 2018 for maintenance.

These two applications are pending within the jurisdiction of

Yelamanchili Court. The respondent is attending the said cases.

He filed the application before the Court for sending her blood

samples. It is not possible for the petitioner to attend each and

every adjournment at Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram. She

has every threat, if she attends the Court there. Hence, the

petition.

3) The respondent got filed a counter denying the

averments in the petition and contending in substance that the

petitioner need not attend each and every adjournment at

Pithapuram Court. There is no provision to compel her to attend

each and every adjournment. The distance between Pithapuram

and Yelamanchili is only 86 kilometers and both the places are

having road and rail facility. In H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, evidence

of P.Ws.1 to 4 was recorded and Exhibits were marked and counsel

for the petitioner herein cross examined the witnesses. Petitioner

never pointed out any difficulty while pursuing her defence in

H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018. After four years and after examination of

all the witnesses, she filed the petition. The provisions of Sections

19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be

overlooked. Respondent is relying upon the judgment of Telangana

High Court in Malyala Bhagya @ Rallabandi Amulya vs.

Rallabandi Ramanachary 1 . Hence, the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4) Now, in deciding the present Transfer Civil

Miscellaneous Petition, the point that arises for consideration is as

to whether the H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of

Senior Civil Judge at Pithapuram, is liable to be transferred to the

Court of Senior Civil Judge at Yelamanchili?

Point:

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that for the convenience sake, the petitioner approached this Court

to get the transfer of H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 and she being a

female, she cannot alone attend the Court at Pithapuram, as such,

relief may be granted.

6) The learned counsel for the respondent would contend

that the petitioner did not disclose in the affidavit that

H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 is part heard and by not revealing true

facts, she filed this application and in support of his contention, he

would rely upon Malyala Bhagya's case (1 supra).

7) There is no dispute that the respondent herein in the

capacity of the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on

2021 (5) ALT 592 (S.B.)

the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, seeking dissolution of

marriage. There is also no dispute that the petitioner herein filed a

case for restitution of conjugal rights at Yelamanchili Court and she

further filed a maintenance case before the concerned Court of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The contention of the respondent

that in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 filed by him, he examined P.Ws.1 to

4 and they were cross examined by the respondent therein, is not

disputed. So, admittedly, the case in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018,

pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is a part

heard case. There is no whisper in the entire affidavit that the said

case is part heard. There is every reason to believe that the

petitioner filed this application without revealing said fact.

8) In Malyala Bhagya's case (1 supra) relied upon by the

learned counsel for the respondent dealing with the contention in

the said case, the Telangana High Court held that the law, as it

stand today, does not permit the Court to exercise the inherent

powers to transfer ignoring the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 A

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This Court would like to make it

clear that even without going into the legal aspects governing

Sections 19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, the

fact remained is that the H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the

file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is a part heard where the

present petitioner chosen to cross examine the evidence adduced

by her husband. So, after the respondent herein completed his

evidence, the petitioner chosen to file this application. The

petitioner did not explain as to why she kept quiet all these days

without approaching this Court and allowed the cross examination

of P.Ws.1 to 4 in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

9) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered

view that as H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is already part heard, I see no reason to

grant the relief.

10) In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition

is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.20.01.2023 PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

Tr.C.M.P.NO.7 OF 2022

Date: 20.01.2023

PGR