TRCMP/709/2015 of Smt. Vemula Srivani Vs Vemula Krishna Manohar on 31 December 2015

ORDER :

This transfer petition is filed to transfer OP No. 1220 of 2013 onthe file of the Family Judge, R.R.District to the Court of Senior CivilJudge, at Huzurabad.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage was solemnizedwith respondent on 28.07.2002 at Suvarna Function Hall atPenchikalpet village of Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District as perHindu rites and customs. After the marriage both of them livedtogether for some days. As the respondent was harassing thepetitioner for additional dowry, she filed a complaint with the WomenPolice Station, Karimnagar and same was registered as Crime No.34of 2013 against the respondent and his family members underSections 498-A, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct and the same is pending. That she was necked out from thematrimonial house. She had no independent source of income and sheis depending on the parental family and that is very difficult her totravel from Huzurabad to Hyderabad for every occasion for attendingthe OP No.1220 of 2013. The petitioner had also filed O.P.No.28 of2013 on the file of Senior civil Judge at Huzurabad and DVC No.7 of2013 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate atHuzurabad, which were also pending and that the respondent isattending the Courts at Huzurabad in OP as well as DVC filed by thepetitioner/wife. As such, this petition is filed to transfer OP No.1220 of2013 on the file of the Family Court, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar to theCourt of Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad.

3. Counter affidavit is filed denying the averments in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition.

4. Heard both sides.

5. In view of above factual background, I am not inclined to go intothe truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the affidavit or counteraffidavit of the case as they are not necessary for disposal of thisTransfer CMP. It is to be seen whether the OP No.1220 of 2013 filedby the respondent/husband on the file of Family Court, R.R.District isliable to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, to be tried along with O.P.No.28 of 2013 which is filed for restitution ofconjugal rights by the petitioner/wife. It is not in dispute that therespondent/husband is attending OP No.28 of 2013 and DVC No.7 of2013 at Huzurabad. It is the case of petitioner that she is not havingany source of income to attend the Court at R.R.District to defend hercase in O.P.No.1220 of 2013 filed by the respondent/husband and sheis depending on her parental family. To avoid conflicting judgments,both O.Ps filed by petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and onefiled by the respondent for divorce, have to be tried together.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another[[1]]held that in transfer of matrimonial proceedingsinitiated by the husband against wife, it is the convenience of wife thathas to be looked at.

In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinionthat O.P.No.1220 of 2013 filed by the respondent/husband on the file ofthe Family Court, R.R.District is liable to be transferred to the Court ofSenior Civil Judge, Huzurabad to be tried along with O.P.No.28 of2013 filed by the petitioner/wife.

Accordingly, the Tr.CMP is allowed. No costs. As a sequelthereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

Tr.CMP.No.709 OF 2015

Date: 31.12.2015

kvs

[1]AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 396