Telangana High Court
TRCMP/679/2015 of T.Rama Devi Vs T.S.N. Murthy on 31 December 2015
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Tr.CMP.No.679 of 2015 O R D E R : This Transfer CMP is filed to withdraw OP.No.1830 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar and transfer the same to the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East Godavari
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.
Arguments
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDYTr.CMP.No.679 of 2015
O R D E R :
This Transfer CMP is filed to withdraw OP.No.1830 of 2014pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy Districtat L.B.Nagar and transfer the same to the Court of II AdditionalJudicial First Class Magistrate, East Godavari District atKakinada.
The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally weddedwife of the respondent and her marriage with the respondent wasperformed on 18.05.1997 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and thatout of their wed lock they were blessed with two daughters. It isalso stated that the respondent never looked after the welfare ofthe petitioner and her children at any point of time and that thepetitioner used to maintain the family with the assistance of herfather and sisters who provided monitory help for paying childrenschool fee and also for dresses to the children. It is also statedthat disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent due tobad vices of the respondent and that ultimately the petitioner filedMC.No.39 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Classmagistrate, Kakinada, for grant of maintenance against therespondent. It is also stated that the respondent is also attendingthe Court proceedings in the MC. It is further stated that therespondent filed OP.No.1830 of 2014 on the file of the Judge,Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking divorce.The case of the petitioner is that she is staying along with her twodaughters at her parents’ house at Kakinada; that she has nosource of income and that it is very difficult for her to travel all theway from Kakinada to Hyderabad and as such filed the present transfer petition.
The respondent filed counter affidavit denying all theallegations made by the petitioner against him. The respondentopposed transfer mainly on the ground that when he went toKakinada on 11.12.2015 to defend himself in MC filed by thepetitioner, he was followed up by two men wearing masks roundtheir mouth without being identified and attacked him and that heused to get threatening phone calls, for which he lodged acomplaint before the III Town LNO Police Station, Kakinada. Assuch, he sought dismissal of the transfer petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the transfer ofOP, on the ground that the respondent is a private employee and ifthe OP is transferred, it is very difficult for the respondent also totravel from Hyderabad to Kakinada as he is having life threat.
In this case, it is to be seen that MC.No.39 of 2015 ispending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kakinada and that the respondent is attending the said Court atKakinada. Since the respondent is already attending the Courtproceedings in the MC, if the OP.No.1830/2014 is transferred, hecan also defend the OP, instead of petitioner coming all the wayfrom Kakinada to Hyderabad to defend the OP. Though, it is statedby the respondent that there is a life threat to him and that helodged a complaint before the III Town LNO Police Station,Kakinada, till today, no crime is registered. But, still therespondent is opposing the transfer on the ground of life threat. Assuch, for convenience of both the parties , I deem it proper that theOP.NO.1830 of 2014 is transferred to Rajahmundry which is Further, the Apex 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 wifethat has to be looked at.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, OP.NO.1830of 2014 pending on the file of the Judge, Family court, RangaReddy Distrcit at L.B.Nagar is transferred to the Family Court,Rajahmundry. However, the respondent shall bear the travellingexpenses of the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings atRajahmundry. Further, since it is stated that the respondent is aprivate employee, the presence of the respondent is dispensedwith on each and every date of hearing, except on the dates ofconciliation, cross-examination or any other dates the Court belowfeels necessary. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingin the transfer petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J31.12.2015t k.
[1]AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 396AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 396