Sadiya , Arepu Ramalakshmi v. Sri Arepu Srinivas

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TRANSFER C.M.P.No.442 OF 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed to withdraw Special Marriage O.P.No.249 of 2017 pending on the file of District Judge, Krishna, and to transfer the same to the Prl. District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, on the ground that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Epuru village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District and it is difficult for her to perform journey from Epuru to Machilipatnam on every date of adjournment and she is facing life threat whenever she attend the Court at Machilipatnam. The first and foremost ground raised before this Court that she is unable to perform journey from Epuru village to Machilipatnam along with her minor child. Petition pending before the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam is only a matter of civil nature purely and her presence on every date of adjournment is not required.

At best her presence is required when her cross-examination is required to be recorded or for any other specific purpose when the Court directed her to appear before the Court, as long as her counsel is representing her case and prosecuting the case on her behalf.

available, her husband-respondent herein shall deposit the expenses for traveling, boarding and lodging in terms of Order XXV of Code of Civil Procedure. In Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam1, the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment laid down certain guidelines in the matrimonial cases for withdrawal and transfer, which are as follows: "18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:- i) Availability of video conferencing facility. ii) Availability of legal aid service.

iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC.

iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate."

Therefore, inability to perform journey from Epuru village to Machilipatnam is not a ground to withdraw and transfer the petition, since, the above judgment indirectly indicated the other methods to be followed for transfer due to any inconvenience.

The other ground is that she is facing life threat whenever she is attending the Court at Machilipatnam. But she did not specify any specific instance when she was subjected to such threat and no complaint was lodged against 1 JT 2017 (3) SC 190

the respondent to the police whenever she was subjected to such threat or atleast she did not complain to the Presiding Officer of the Court about such threat. However, if she is really facing such threat she is at liberty to give complaint to the police or to the Presiding Officer of the Court. If such complaint is lodged with the Presiding Officer of the Court, the Presiding Officer is requested to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner whenever she attends the Court in connection with the petition, subject to decision of the Court as to expenses for such protection.

The other ground raised before this Court that D.V.C.No.19 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein is pending before the Court of Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, but the same cannot be clubbed along with the petition filed under Hindu Marriage Act. However, appearance of the respondent before the Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, by itself is not a ground to deviate the jurisdiction which conferred on the Court, therefore, it is also not a ground to withdraw and transfer the petition. In view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, her appearance before the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, on every date of adjournment can be dispensed with as long as she is being represented by her counsel and her counsel prosecuting the proceedings on her

behalf except on the day when her cross-examination is required to be recorded by the Court, or on any day when specifically directed by the Court.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam is requested not to insist the appearance of the petitioner herein on every date of adjournment as long as her counsel representing her and prosecuting the proceedings on her behalf except on the day of reconciliation and on the day when her cross-examination is required to be recorded, when cross-examination by videoconference is not available, the respondent be directed to deposit traveling, boarding and lodging expenses in terms of Order XXV of Code of Civil Procedure and on such deposit the petitioner shall appear before the Court and depose. This direction does not preclude the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam to pass any order against the petitioner in the event of her counsel failed to represent and prosecute the proceedings, in accordance with law.

With the above direction, the petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY July 14, 2017 Pn

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TRANSFER C.M.P.No.442 OF 2017 July 14, 2017 Pn