Smt. Monica vs Sri. Peddoju Rakesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3796 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

                   TRANSFER C.M.P.No.18 of 2021

ORDER:

1. Petitioner-wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of O.P.No.23 of 2020 pending on

the file of Judge, Family Court at Warangal to the file of Judge,

Additional Family Court at Malkajgiri.

2. The marriage of petitioner with the respondent was performed

on 12.12.2018 as per the prevailing customs in their community.

They led happy marital life for some time. Later, the petitioner was

subjected to mental and physical harassment in the hands of

respondent and his family members. The respondent was using vulgar

language against the petitioner and also beat her, a panchayat was also

held, elders advised for a compromise, but in vain. Finally, she was

forced to join her parents when she fell sick and there was nobody to

attend her at her inlaws' place. Later, the respondent has filed

O.P.No.23 of 2020 on the file of Judge, Family Court at Warangal,

seeking divorce. She has filed a domestic violence case and a

criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A before the Courts at

Malkajgiri. Accordingly, requested for transfer of FCOP.No.23 of

2020 to Malkajgiri Court.

3. Respondent-husband has filed a detailed counter alleging that

the petitioner used to go to the office in the night shifts and never

resided with him in the house. She never co-operated with him at any

AVR, J Tr.CMP.No.18 of 2021

point of time for leading conjugal life. She used to make nuisance in

the locality and at times she used to go to the office of the respondent

and create gallata, and in view of the same, he lost his job and he is

residing with his parents at Hanamkonda doing carpentry work.

Though the panchayat was held in the presence of elders, the

petitioner was reluctant to join the respondent. She has filed a

criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The

respondent has filed a petition before the High Court seeking

directions to the Police not to call him in civil disputes.

Consequently, the Police have registered a case for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC. The criminal case and the domestic violence

case in DVC.No.93 of 2019 are all false and fabricated. If the matter

is transferred from Warangal to Malkajgiri, again, a new number will

be given to the case and it takes considerable time. The domestic

violence case and the criminal case are not connected with divorce

petition and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner seeks to submit that in

matrimonial disputes, the convenience of wife needs to e preferred

and that the same principle is followed by this Court in M.Hema

Madhuri v. Mopur Sandeep1 and that it causes hardship to the

petitioner if the petition is not allowed and she is made to attend the

Family Court at Warangal.

2019 SCC Online TS 3304

AVR, J Tr.CMP.No.18 of 2021

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has strenuously

contended that it is because of the attitude of the petitioner the

respondent is forced to file the divorce O.P. and that the respondent

has lost his job and now he is doing carpentry work supporting his

parents. Filing of domestic violence case and criminal case for the

offence under Section 498-A IPC at Malkajgiri is nothing to do with

the divorce O.P. In fact, the presence of the petitioner may not be

required on each and every date of hearing at the Family Court at

Warangal and she may be permitted to attend the Court as and when

required and to that extent, he is willing to pay her travelling

expenses. Accordingly, the respondent has relied on the following

decisions :

1. Smt.Pancherupula Sathyavathi v. Pancherupala Prabhakar2

2. Pooja Tipirneni v. Tipirneni Harsha3.

3. Motupalli Usha Rani v. Pala Sivva Rama Krishna4.

4. Asuru Jyothi v. Asuri Someswara Rao5.

5. Kunapareddy Venkateswara Rao v. Kunapareddy Nagamani Kumari6.

6. Amrula Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah v. Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra Shah7

7. I have carefully perused the principles laid in the above

decisions. The admitted and undisputed facts of the case are that the

Order of this Court in Transfer CMP.No.88 of 2019, dt.13.02.2020.

2020 (2) ALD 385

2020 (6) ALD 204 (AP)

2021 (2) ALD 33 (AP)

2021 (3) ALD 626 (AP)

2021 (2) ALD 116 (SC)

AVR, J Tr.CMP.No.18 of 2021

petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. They led

happy marital life for some time. Thereafter, disputes arose between

them. The intervention of the elders could not resolve the disputes.

Petitioner-wife started living with her parents at Malkajgiri. Whereas

the contention of the petitioner is that she was neglected, ill-treated

not only by the respondent, but by his family members also. She was

thrown out of her matrimonial house, forced to join her parents. As

the respondent has failed to lookafter her and harassed her, she was

compelled to file a domestic violence case and a criminal case for the

offence under Section 498-A of IPC for demand for additional dowry

and requested to transfer the divorce O.P. pending on the file of

Judge, Family Court at Warangal to the Judge, Additional Family

Court at Malkajgiri for the sake of convenience, considering her

safety.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment in

the case of M.Hema Madhuri (1 supra), wherein, this Court,

considering the request of the wife seeking transfer of HMOP from

the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District to the competent Court

at Suryapet, held that Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has

been amended in the year 2003 by insertion of proviso (iii)(a). The

amended Section 19(iii)(a) of the Act gives special preference to the

wife to file a petition and prosecute the same before the Court in

whose jurisdiction she resides. Law is well settled that in cases of

present nature, convenience of wife is of paramount importance.

AVR, J Tr.CMP.No.18 of 2021

9. In Pancherupula Sathyavathi (2 supra) and in Pooja

Tipirneni's case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for

respondent, it was observed that unless and until a sufficient and

cogent ground is shown for transfer of a case from one Court to

another, transfer should not be allowed as a matter of course. In

Motupalli Usha Rani's case (4 supra), ill-health of the petitioner was

not considered as a ground for transfer of case. Whereas, in Asuru

Jyothi's case (5 supra), transfer petition was allowed, O.P. filed by

the husband was transferred from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram.

In Kunapareddy Venkateswara Rao's case (5 supra) relied upon by

the learned counsel for respondent, the husband, an RTC employee,

claiming inconvenience, filed a transfer CMP and the same was

dismissed. Finally, in the case of Amrutha Ben Himanshu Kumar

Shah (7 supra), when the case was posted for final arguments, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to order transfer, as it may derail

the entire process. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for respondent are not at all helpful to the respondent to show

that the petitioner is not entitled for transfer of the pending divorce

O.P.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v.

Kishor Babulal Pardeshi8, while dealing with transfer proceedings

of matrimonial dispute, held that in this type of matters, the

convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the

(2005) 12 SCC 237

AVR, J Tr.CMP.No.18 of 2021

husband. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, principles

laid in the above decision, I deem it fit to consider the request of the

petitioner.

11. In the result, the Transfer CMP is allowed. O.P.No.23 of 2020

pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Warangal is withdrawn

and transferred to the Judge, Additional Family Court, Malkajgiri for

disposal in accordance with law. The learned Judge, Family Court,

Warangal shall transmit the entire record duly indexed, within one

month from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2021

ajr