Smt. Pancherupula Sathyavathi v. Pancherupala Prabhakar

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Tr .C.M.P.No.8 8 OF 2 0 1 9 ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the petitioner/ wife seeking to transfer O.P.No.109 from the file Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, for trial and disposal, in accordance with law. 2 .

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3 .

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ wife would submit that the respondent/ husband filed O.P.No.109 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking divorce. The petitioner/ wife is residing at Bhupalpally. The Court situated at Sircilla is 160 KM away from the residence of the petitioner/ wife. Therefore, it is causing inconvenience to the petitioner/ wife to attend the Court at Sircilla. Further, the petitioner/ wife filed D.V.C.No.15 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, and the respondent/ husband is appearing in the said case. The Court at Warangal is convenient to both the parties and ultimately, prayed to withdraw O.P.No.109 of 2018 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and transfer the same to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

4 .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband would submit that the respondent/ husband is

not maintaining good health. The same was asserted by the petitioner/ wife in paragraph No.10 of the counter filed by her in the subject O.P. No grounds are made out by the petitioner/ wife to transfer the subject O.P., as prayed for and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the transfer petition.

5 .

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the point that arises for determination is as follows: " W h et h er O.P.No.1 0 9 of 2 0 1 8 pen din g on t h e file of Sen ior Civil Ju dge, Sir cilla, can be w it h dr aw n an d t r an sfer r ed t o t h e file Pr in cipal Sen ior Civil Ju dge, W ar an gal?" 6 .

Here, it is apt to refer to the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Ch ej er la Sr ilak sh m i Vs. Ch ej er la Ram esh Babu 1, wherein, the erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under: "The Apex Court took note of inconvenience being caused to the parties but not the inconvenience to the wife alone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case adverting to the earlier judgment rendered in "Ram Gulam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad" and "Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh" (as referred in the judgment) and opined that all the authorities are based on the facts of the respective cases and they do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent. Thereafter, it noted that taking advantage of the leniency shown to the ladies by this Court, number of transfer petitions are filed by women and, therefore, it is required to consider each petition on merit. 1 2018 (4) ALD 162

Then, the Court dwell upon the fact situation and directed that the husband shall pay all travel and stay expenses to the wife and her companion for each and every occasion whenever she was required to attend the Court. From the aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that the Court felt that the transfer petitions are to be considered on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine manner." 7 .

In the instant case, the grounds putforth by the petitioner/ wife for transfer the case filed by the respondent/ husband are that it is inconvenient for her to travel from her place of residence to Sircilla to attend the proceedings in the Court at Sircilla and that a D.V.C. case is pending at Parkal and the respondent/ husband is appearing in the said D.V.C. case. While dealing with similar situations, this Court and the Honourable Apex Court were of the opinion that in a petition to transfer a case from one Court to another Court under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the inconvenience of both the parties that is to be taken into consideration, but not the inconvenience to the wife alone and that transfer petitions are to be considered on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine manner.

Normally, this Court is inclined to allow the applications of this nature, where there are genuine reasons/ circumstances to transfer the case from one Court to another. As far as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the health condition of the respondent/ husband. The inconvenience said to be caused to the petitioner/ wife to attend the Court at Sircilla cannot be a ground to grant the relief sought by her in this petition. Further, pendency of a D.V.C.

ground to transfer the subject O.P. The proceedings in the D.V.C. case and the O.P., filed under Section 13 of the Act, are distinct and different. The parameters for adjudication of the aforesaid cases are different. If the aforesaid cases are disposed of by different Courts, there will be no conflict of judgments/ orders. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the grounds raised by the petitioner/ wife do not justify the relief sought by her in this petition. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8 .

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J February 13, 2020.

MD