Smt.Gandikota Swathi v. Sri Gandikota Surya Venkata Siva Dasaradhi

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY TRANSFER C.M.P.No.122 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.236 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, Guntur District, and transfer the same to any other court having jurisdiction at Eluru, West Godavari District, for disposal in accordance with law.

2.

Heard both the counsel 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 14.03.2015 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life. Out of lawful wedlock, the petitioner and respondent were blessed with a son. For the reasons best known to the parties to the proceedings, disputes arose between them, therefore, the petitioner has been residing at her parents house in Eluru along with her son. 4.

While things stood thus, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.236 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage between them. As per the recitals in H.M.O.P., the petitioner is the permanent resident of Eluru town. It is the case of the

petitioner that she is not in a position to travel from Eluru to Tenali along with her son in order to prosecute H.M.O.P.No.236 of 2016.

5.

While deciding 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, wife and the children. Even if the petition is allowed, the same may not cause any prejudice to the respondent.

6.

As per the principle enunciated in V.Sailaja v V.Koteswara Rao1, Rachna Kanodia v. Anuk Kanodia2, and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay3, the paramount consideration, in transfer of matrimonial cases, is the convenience of the wife. 7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the relief sought for. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the presence of the respondent may be dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment before the Family Court, Eluru. Even if the presence of the respondent is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. H.M.O.P.No.236 of 2016 is withdrawn from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, and transferred to the 1 AIR 2003 AP 178 = 2003 (1) ALD 673 = 2003 (1) APLJ 441 2 2001(7) Supreme 96 3 AIR 2002 SC 396

file of the Judge, Family Court, Eluru, for disposal in accordance with law. The presence of the respondent before the Family Court, Eluru in connection with H.M.O.P.No.236 of 2016 is dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment. However, he shall appear before the trial Court as and when his presence is so required. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J 10th April 2017 Rns