Chiluveru Prashanthi vs Chiluvery Pavan Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 68 Tel

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                    TR.C.M.P.NO.306 of 2022

ORDER :

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of

C.P.C. against the respondent with a prayer to transfer the divorce

O.P. filed by the respondent herein vide O.P.No.54 of 2022 from

Family Court, Nalgonda to the Court of Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet.

2. The petitioner and respondent are wife and husband

and as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this

petition, their marriage was performed on 20-03-2016 at Sri Laxmi

Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta. The petitioner has

claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents have presented a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 36 tulas of gold a part from

Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of house-hold articles. The petitioner

joined the respondent who was doing software job at Hyderabad.

The petitioner claims that she was subjected to the harassment by

the respondent and her in-laws on the ground that she was not

blessed with children and she brought less dowry. The petitioner

further claims that when the couple approached the Doctor at

OASIS Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, the Doctors found 2 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022

defect in both the couple and advised them to explore the

possibility of having children through IVM. Therefore, the parents

of the petitioner spent about Rs.20,00,000/- for the treatment with

a hope that this will settle her conjugal life.

3. The petitioner is blessed with a male child, who was

aged about 3 years at the time of filing the petition. But there was

no change in the respondent and the petitioner was continuously

harassed, thereby she filed a complaint before police, Suryapet,

which was registered as Cr.No.234 of 2022 against the respondent

and his family members. The police have filed a charge sheet

against the respondent and his family members vide C.C.No.867 of

2022. The respondent filed a petition seeking divorce before

Family Court, Nalgonda, which was registered vide O.S.No.54 of

2022. It seems the petitioner has also filed another criminal case

under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a

petition seeking maintenance which are pending before the Courts

at Suryapet. The petitioner states that the distance between

Nalgonda and Suryapet is about 60 kilometers. The petitioner

cannot travel from Suryapet to Nalgonda for attending the above

divorce petition, thereby sought for transfer of the case filed by

the respondent from Nalgonda to Suryapet.

                                       3                               SSRN,J
                                                      TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022

4. The respondent made his appearance before the Court,

filed an elaborate counter disputing all the averments made by the

petitioner.

5. The respondent has claimed that he never received

any dowry or other customery gifts as alleged by the petitioner

herein. Having admitted the marriage with the petitioner and

while denying the other allegations, the respondent has claimed

that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that she cannot

produce 'Oocytes' and she cannot bear children naturally, thereby

there was a divorce by mutual consent after the birth of male

child. He has also claimed that the petitioner lodged a police

complaint only after she received summons in the divorce petition

filed by the respondent herein. The respondent further claims that

the petitioner deserted him after the birth of male child and she

started behaving as if she does not need the conjugal life with the

respondent and she herself left the matrimonial life. The

respondent has filed medical record in support of his claim that the

petitioner undergone IVF and an Egg Donar procedure for an

amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was spent by the respondent. As

against the allegation made by the petitioner that she need to

attend the breast feeding child, the respondent claims that the 4 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022

counter filed by the petitioner herein in the divorce case clearly

shows that she sought for a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards

the Play School fee of her child. It clearly indicates that there is

no such breast feeding child with the petitioner and while denying

the other averments made in the petition, the respondent sought

for dismissal of the application.

6. Heard both parties.

7. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether there are any grounds for transfer of the divorce case filed by the respondent from Suryapet to Nalgonda ?

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner being a lady with a kid cannot attend the Court

at Nalgonda to defend the divorce petition filed by the respondent

herein. She is not in a position to bear the expenditure. Whereas,

the learned counsel for the respondent states that the CD's filed by

the respondent clearly demonstrates as to how the petitioner left

the matrimonial home of the respondent. The medical record

produced by him would show that all the allegations about the

expenditure alleged to have been made by the parents of the

petitioner is false. The respondent himself spent the amount and

in fact there was a defect with the petitioner who cannot gave

birth to a baby in a natural process. However, after the birth of 5 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022

male child, there was a change in the attitude of the petitioner and

she herself left the house of respondent. Since there is a desertion

by the petitioner for a considerable period, the respondent was

forced to file divorce case. The petitioner herein only to harass the

respondent filed number of criminal cases. While relying on a

Judgment of this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.354 of 2017, the learned

counsel for the respondent has submitted that the distance

between Nalgonda and Suryapet is not more than 60 kilometers,

the petitioner need not attend each and every adjudication at

Nalgonda. The parties if require can explore the other possibilities

of conducting a trial with the help of video conference. Therefore,

prayed for dismissal of the application.

9. It is true, the petitioner is a lady with a small kid but

that may not be a strong ground for seeking transfer of a case

when there is a material to believe that the couple last resided at

Suryapet. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner itself, it shows

that she and respondent lived together at Nalgonda till she left the

house of the respondent. It may be true that there are other

criminal cases filed by the petitioner, the petitioner as rightly

submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent need not

attend all the adjournments at Nalgonda and at best, she may 6 SSRN,J TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022

have to attend the case for reconciliation process and giving

instructions to the learned counsel for conducting cross-

examination of respondent and his witnesses. The petitioner

claims that she cannot afford to bear the expenses for attending

the Court at Nalgonda. The petitioner is a lady without any

employment. Therefore, the respondent shall bear the expenses

of traveling etc., of the petitioner and the persons accompanying

her for attending the Court at Nalgonda. With this observation,

the petition can be disposed.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the

respondent is directed to pay the expenses that may be incurred

by the petitioner for attending the Court at Nalgonda for defending

the divorce case and also the expenses of the person, who escorts

the petitioner from Suryapet to Nalgonda.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.

                                 __________________________
                                 JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 05.01.2023
PLV
 7                   SSRN,J
    TR.C.M.P. No.306 of 2022