Tekkam(Bandi) Mounika Tejaswini v. Tekkam Venkatesh

The Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy Transfer CMP.No.20 of 2018 Order:

This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') to withdraw OP.No.185 of 2017, from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gudivada, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The case of the petitioner is that she is residing at Visakhapatnam and the respondent is working at Hyderabad and as such, it is inconvenient to both of them to appear before the Court at Gudivada. The main ground urged by her is that there is no direct transportation facility from Visakhapatnam to Gudivada covering the distance of 500 kms. The other ground raised by her is that her father is physically handicapped; that he himself is dependant upon her siblings; and that there is no male support to accompany her to the Court at Gudivada in connection with the above OP. In order to avoid such inconvenience, she sought for withdrawal of OP.No.185 of 2017 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court at Gudivada and transfer

the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

At the stage of admission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid OP was filed for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty; that there is no direct transportation facility between Gudivada and Visakhapatnam; and that it is difficult for the petitioner to appear before the Court on the dates of adjournment without any male assistance. He requested that the inconvenience of the petitioner be taken into consideration and the OP be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

The first ground urged by the petitioner is that there is no direct transport facility between Visakhapatnam and Gudivada. No doubt, the petitioner has been staying with her parents at Visakhapatnam since the date of her separation from the respondent. Gudivada is a railway junction. Most of the express trains such as Visakhapatam Express and Howrah - Tirupathi Express running between Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad and Madras pass through Gudivada Railway Station. Therefore, the contention of the

petitioner that there is no direct transport facility between the aforesaid two places is not correct.

The other ground urged by the petitioner is regarding her inconvenience to appear before the Court without any male assistance. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is now dependent upon her parents at Visakhapatnam. She has to bear the travelling and other incidental expenses for appearing before the Court at Gudivada in connection with the above OP, which she cannot afford. The respondent is working at Hyderabad. Therefore, whenever the petitioner's appearance is required before the Court, the respondent shall pay the travelling and other incidental expenses to the petitioner as well as the person, who accompanies her to the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court at Gudivada in connection with the above OP.

The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada, is directed not to insist appearance of the petitioner on each and every date of adjournment so long as she is represented by the Counsel. This order will not preclude the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, from passing any order in accordance with law in case the petitioner's Counsel does not represent the case on her behalf and the petitioner fails to appear before the Court.

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

_________________________ (M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J) Dt: 24th January, 2018 lur