Telangana High Court
TRCMP/418/2014 of Gunji Lakshmi Sudha Rani Vs Gunji Anjaneyulu on 30 December 2014
S. RAVI KUMAR TRANSFER C.M.P.No.418 of 2014 ORDER: This petition is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2014 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasham District, and transfer the same to Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. Wife is petitioner. According to her
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMARTRANSFER C.M.P.No.418 of 2014
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 petition is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.45 of2014 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur,Prakasham District, and transfer the same to Senior CivilJudge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
2. Wife is petitioner. According to her affidavit, hermarriage with respondent was performed on 27.08.2009at Tirumala in Chittoor District and subsequently after birthof a female child due to harassment caused to her, shegave a complainant at Machilipatnam Police Station andsame is registered as Crime No.27 of 2010 andsubsequently registered as C.C.No.14 of 2013 and thesame is pending. She also stated that she filedM.C.No.13 of 2011 claiming maintenance andrespondent-husband filed H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2014 fordivorce as a counter blast for these two cases in order toharass her. She stated that it is inconvenient for her totravel from Machilipatnam to Kandukur to defendH.M.O.P.No.45 of 2014 and that she has no financialassistant to bear the travelling expenses fromMachilipatnam to Kandukur. She also contended that shegot a three years old daughter and it is inconvenient anddifficult for her to undertake journey with small child. Forthese reasons, she sought transfer of H.M.O.P.No.45 of2014 from Kandukur to Machilipatnam.
3. This Court permitted the petitioner to take personalnotice to respondent. But, as the notice was returned un-served, petitioner was permitted to take notice toAdvocate for respondent in the lower Court on record andaccordingly, notice was taken and as per Memo dated11.12.2014, the notice sent to the lower Court advocatewas duly served and postal acknowledgment is filed. Inspite of service of notice, respondent neither appeared inperson nor through any Advocate.
4. Heard arguments.
5. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit andalso considering the convenience of the wife,H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2014 is withdrawn from Senior CivilJudge, Kandukur, Prakasham District and transferred toSenior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, fordisposal in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, transfer C.M.P. is allowed. No costs.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall standdismissed.
30[th] December 2014.mar
__________________
S. RAVI KUMAR, J