Smt. Chunduru Uma Devi vs Shri. Chunduru Surandranath
2021 Latest Caselaw 1550 Tel

         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

AIR 1991 SC 1104

AIR 2002 SC 396

JT 2000(10) SC 19

JT 2000(2) SC 440

2002(1) MLJ 86 (SC)

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

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