Gudla Archana vs Gudla Ganesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1401 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU


  TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.23 OF 2023


ORDER :

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been

filed by the petitioner/wife against the

respondent/husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to transfer H.M.O.P.No.1 of

2021 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, to the

file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Principal

Family Judge, Kukatpally.

2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has filed her

affidavit with the following averments:

The petitioner and the respondent are wife and

husband and their marriage was performed on 23.05.2013

at Andey Village, Siddipet District. The petitioner and the

respondent have led marital life happily for one year and

thereafter, there were disputes between the couple. The

parents of the petitioner hails from Andey Village but to

eke out their livelihood, they migrated to Sanathnagar,

Hyderabad, about 25 years ago and residing in

Sanathnagar locality. It seems that there is relationship

between the petitioner and the respondent even prior to the

marriage because the respondent is none other than the

son of her paternal aunt. Soon after the marriage, the

petitioner and the respondent lived at Siddipet. The

petitioner states that the respondent subjected her to

harassment for want of additional dowry, even though he

had been to Mumbai to look after his business, he kept the

petitioner at the native place. When the petitioner forced

him to take her to Mumbai, though he took her to Mumbai,

he tried to kill her and drove her from his house. Therefore,

she came back to the house of her parents and at the

instance of the petitioner, panchayats were conducted in

the presence of the elders. The petitioner has further

contended that the respondent was addicted to drinking,

smoking and other bad habits, which caused mental agony

to the petitioner herein. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner

gave birth to a girl child on 31.12.2018. The petitioner has

alleged that on the 21st day ceremony, the respondent and

his parents demanded huge amount and gold ornaments

and as the parents of the petitioner were unable to arrange

the same, the respondent beat and insulted the petitioner

before the relatives and drove her away from his house. It

seems that the respondent has filed petition before the

Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet vide H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2021 and

sought for divorce from the petitioner herein. The petitioner

claims that she is a resident of Kukatpally and she has no

means to travel from Hyderabad to Siddipet to attend the

Court below in the above referred case. Therefore, she

sought for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2021 from Siddipet

to Kukatpally.

3. Notice was ordered against the respondent but it was

returned unserved with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. When

learned counsel for the petitioner tried to serve the notice

on learned counsel appearing before the Court below on

behalf of the respondent, he 'refused' to receive the same.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Now, the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner for transfer of the divorce petition filed by her husband ?

6. Notice ordered against the respondent was sent to the

address which he mentioned in the divorce petition but the

notice was returned unserved with an endorsement

'unclaimed'. In view of the representation made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, an attempt was made to serve a

copy of the petition and notice of this petition on the

counsel for the respondent before the Court below. As per

the endorsement made on the postal cover through which

the notice was sent to the respondent, the same was kept

with the postal department and having waited for seven

days, the postal authorities returned the same as

'unclaimed'. Therefore, it appears that though the

respondent got knowledge about this petition, avoided the

service.

7. The petitioner who is aged about 28 years with a

small girl child has no separate source of income. At

present, she is depending upon her parents for her survival

and for the survival of her daughter. In such a case, she

has to attend the Court at Siddipet, which is additional

burden to the petitioner as well as to her parents.

8. In Judgment N.C.V.AISHWARYA v.

A.S.SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA1, the Hon'ble Apex

Court was pleased to observe the following:

"......... Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

9. By relying the Judgment referred supra, and

having regard to the facts and circumstances of this

case and arguments put forth by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the

considered opinion that in matrimonial disputes, the

interest of wife shall be considered rather than the

interest of the respondent. The petitioner being a

mother of a small child without having any separate

source of income cannot afford the travelling expenses.

Therefore, the request of the petitioner can be

considered.

2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1199

10. Under the discussion made hereinbefore, the

petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof,

H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Siddipet, is withdrawn and transferred to the

file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Principal

Family Judge, Kukatpally.

The concerned Court is hereby directed to

transmit the entire case file, after duly indexed, within

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Order, under the intimation to the other side.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed. No costs.

___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU DATED 24.03.2023 YNK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.23 OF 2023

DATED 24.03.2023

YNK