Telangana High Court
TRCMP/690/2015 of Vinnakota Kousalya Vs Vinnakota Seshu Babu on 31 December 2015
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Tr.CMP.No.690 OF 2015 ORDER : This transfer petition is filed to withdraw O.P.No.356 of 2015 on the file of Family Court Judge, at Vijayawada and to transmit the same to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Tr.CMP.No.690 OF 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This transfer petition is filed to withdraw O.P.No.356 of 2015 onthe file of Family Court Judge, at Vijayawada and to transmit the sameto the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with therespondent was solemnized on 15.10.2013 at SDA Central ChurchBunder Road, Vijayawada as per customs prevailing in ChristianCommunity. Both of them lived together for some time in Hyderabad. Later, to the surprise of the petitioner, respondent filed O.P.No.356 of2015 on the file of Judge Family Court at Vijayawada seekingdissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. That the petitioner is residing at Hyderabad with her mother andsearching for employment and that she is not having sufficient meansto travel to Vijayawada to defend O.P.No.356 of 2015 filed by therespondent. As such, the present petition is filed to transferO.P.No.356 of 2015 on the file of Judge, Family Court, at Vijayawadato Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. Though notice is sent to the respondent on the address given byhim in the OP No.356 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, atVijayawada, same is returned with an endorsement that ‘there is nosuch person in the said address’. The said notice was taken out to thecounsel appearing on behalf of respondent, which is served, but nocounter is filed by him. There is no appearance on behalf of therespondent, which goes to show that the averments made in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition are true.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Since the petitioner is residing with her mother and she is nothaving sufficient means to travel Vijayawada, I am of the opinion that O.P.No.356 of 2015 on the file of Family Court Judge at Vijayawada isliable to be transferred to the Family Court, City Civil Court,Hyderabad. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Sing v.
Kumar Sanjay and another[[1]]held that in transfer of matrimonialproceedings initiated by the husband against wife, it is theconvenience of wife that has to be looked at.
In view of above facts and circumstances, O.P.No.356 of 2015on the file of Family Court Judge at Vijayawada is transferred to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Accordingly, the Tr.CMP is allowed. No costs. As a sequelthereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
31.12.2015kvs
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Tr.CMP.No.690 OF 2015
Date: 31.12.2015
kvs
[1]AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 396