Smt. Rikitha Reddy vs K. Chandrasekar Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 677 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Rikitha Reddy vs K. Chandrasekar Reddy on 19 February, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                     Tr.C.M.P.No.489 of 2023


ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking

transfer of H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2023 from the file of the Senior

Civil Judge Court - cum - Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, Shadnagar to the file of the Family Court,

Secunderabad.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are

that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the

respondent-husband on 27.03.2022 at Chandra Reddy Gardens

Kompally, Medchal District, as per the Hindu Rites and

Customs. As time passed by, the relationship between the

petitioner and respondent was disturbed and petitioner was

subjected to lot of mental and physical cruelty. Hence, the

petitioner was constrained to leave the company of the

respondent on 15.05.2022. Thereafter, the respondent herein

filed H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2023, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge

Court - cum - Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

at Shadnagar, seeking Divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu

LNA, J

Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage and the said

case is pending adjudication.

3. It is contended that petitioner is residing at Macha

Bolarum, Secunderabad and it is difficult for her to regularly

attend the Court at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, since the

distance from Macha Bollarum to Shadnagar is 75 kms and

that she does not have any male assistant to attend the Court.

It is further contended that it would be convenient for the

petitioner to attend the Court at Secunderabad, as the distance

between Macha Bolaraum to Secunderabad is 10 kms. Hence,

she prayed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2023, which is filed by

the respondent, from the Court at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy

District to the Family Court, Secunderabad.

4. The respondent had filed the counter affidavit denying the

averments made by the petitioner. It is contended that the

petitioner has not pleaded any genuine, valid and cogent

reasons for seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2022 from the

file of the Senior Civil Judge Court - cum - Assistant Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Shadnagar to the file of the Family

Court, Secunderabad.It is further contended that except the

LNA, J

petitioner has no male assistance, nothing has been averred in

the said petition. If this type of application is entertained, there

would not be any legal sanctity and everybody would try to take

undue advantage of the same and the same is nothing but

sheer abuse of process of law.

5. It is further contended that if the photographs and the

videos filed by the respondent are perused, it crystal clearly

shows that the petitioner always accompanied by her parents

and relatives and how high handedly they stepped in the village

and forcibly entered into the house of the respondent and from

there took all the articles by threatening the respondent and his

family. It is contended that the petitioner, her parents and their

relatives, with high handed influence, muscle power, political

influence and also police influence, forcing the respondent to

withdraw the divorce petition filed by him against the petitioner.

6. It is also contended that the respondent as well as his

parents receiving phone calls from the various unknown

numbers, wherein they are threatening the respondent and his

family to transfer the properties, which stand in the name of the

respondent's father, in the name of the petitioner and to pay

LNA, J

huge money to them. It is also contended that there is threat to

his life from the petitioner and her family members and that if

the OP transferred to the Family Court, Secunderabad, it would

be difficult for the respondent to attend the Court proceedings

on every date of hearing, as there is posed threat from the

petitioner and her parents. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the

transfer petition.

7. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Y.Shashidhar Reddy, the learned counsel for

the respondent. Perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it

would be difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court at

Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District on every date of hearing and

that the distance between Shadnagar to Macha Bolarum is

more than 75 K.Ms and that she does not have any male

assistant to attend the Court. He further contended that in the

transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the convenience

of the wife has to be considered vis-à-vis the convenience of the

husband, and therefore, the request of the petitioner-wife needs

to be considered. Therefore, he finally prayed to transfer the

LNA, J

H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent to the Family Court at

Secunderabad. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh 1.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that on 11.02.2023, all the articles, which were

presented at the time of marriage of the petitioner and

respondent, were returned to the family members of the

petitioner in the presence of Grampanchayat elders. He further

contended that the petitioner and her family members with the

help of their relatives, continuously threatening and harassing

the respondent and his family members to withdraw the divorce

petition; all her relatives residing at Bolarum and they are

highly influenced people and there is serious threat to the life of

the respondent. Therefore, it would be very difficult to the

respondent to attend the Court on each date of hearing if the

case transferred to Family Court, Secunderabad. Hence, prayed

to dismiss the Transfer C.M.P.

(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447

LNA, J

10. In Gargi Konar's case (1st cited supra), which was relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"The only ground made out in the transfer petition by the petitioner wife is that she is a helpless woman fully dependent upon her father and that her financial capacity is not such so that she can contest the proceedings in Bhatinda in the State of Punjab.

In our view, this is not a ground for transfer at all. The respondent can be directed to pay for her and her companions, to-and-fro and stay, expenses on every occasion on which she is required to travel. The Additional Civil Judge before whom the case is pending is directed to quantify the amount and to ensure that the same is paid to her on every occasion that she is required to remain present in the court. With these directions, the transfer petition stands dismissed."

11. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case

are different and thus, the above judgment has no application

to the present case.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs

A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 held as follows:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the

2022 SCC Online SC 1199

LNA, J

wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

13. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd cited supra), has been

reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil

Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 3,

and observed as under:-

"In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience"

14. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul

Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 4 followed the principle laid

down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (2nd cited supra) and Devika

Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd

cited supra), and held as follows:-

"The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband."

15. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982)

LNA, J

matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the

application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to

another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the

wife over the convenience of the husband.

16. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that

the petitioner is seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. filed by the

respondent from the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court - cum -

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Shadnagar to

the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, on the ground that

the distance from Macha Bollarum to Shadnagar is 75 kms and

that she does not have any male assistant to attend the Court

and therefore, it is difficult for her to travel from Macha

Bolaram to Shadnagar on every date of adjournment.

17. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and

in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions

and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the

respondent, this Court is inclined to transfer of the case to the

Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

18. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is disposed of and

H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2023 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge

LNA, J

Court - cum - Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

Shadnagar is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge,

Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, for disposal in

accordance with law.

19. The Senior Civil Judge Court - cum - Assistant Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Shadnagar, shall transmit the

entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2023 duly indexed, to

the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District,

L.B.Nagar, preferably within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 19.02.2024 Dua