Smt Dantuluri Shivaranjani, v. Dantuluri Vijay Kumar Varma,
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY TRANSFER C.M.P.No.358 of 2016 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.591 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the court of Judge, Family Court, Khammam, for disposal in accordance with law. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.
3.
A perusal of the record reveals that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent on 18.06.2014 at Alamandha village of Vijayanagaram District, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life. For one reason or other, bad weather prevailed in the family life of the petitioner and the respondent which forced the petitioner to stay at her parents house at Burgampahad of Khammam District. Basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Burgampahad Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2016 against the respondent and his family members for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner also filed M.C.No.78 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent seeking maintenance and the same is pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Khammam.
4.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein filed D.V.C. against the respondent and the same is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.
5.
While things stood thus, the respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.591 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between them.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing some difficulty to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a life threat to the respondent if he attends the Court at Khammam. The apprehension of the respondent is not supported by any material much less cogent and convincing material. It is not uncommon to take this type of pleas in matrimonial cases in order to gain the sympathy of the Court. Invariably, the respondent has to attend the Family Court, at Khammam to prosecute M.C.No.78 of 2016. He has to attend the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam in view of pendency of D.V.C. and CC. Even if the petition is allowed, the same may not cause any prejudice to the respondent. While disposing the petitions of this nature, the Court has to take into consideration the inconvenience likely to be caused to the parties to the proceedings, more particularly, the wife.
7.
As per the principle enunciated in V.Sailaja v V.Koteswara Rao1, Rachna Kanodia v. Anuk Kanodia2, and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay3, 1 AIR 2003 AP 178 = 2003 (1) ALD 673 = 2003 (1) APLJ 441 2 2001(7) Supreme 96 3 AIR 2002 SC 396
the paramount consideration, in transfer of matrimonial cases, is the convenience of the wife.
8.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am inclined to allow the petition.
9. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. H.M.O.P.No.591 of 2016 is withdrawn from the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Khammam, for disposal in accordance with law. However, the Judge, Family Court at Khammam is hereby directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.591 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any shall stand closed.
_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J 21st February 2017 Rns