Rama Himabindu v. Rama Rajesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TR.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.599 OF 2018 ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is filed to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.485 of 2017 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Warangal and transfer the same to the file of Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar. The contention of the petitioner/wife is that she being lady unable to undertake journey from Warangal to Karimnagar covering distance of 100 kms and that she filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act at Karimnagar. Therefore, requested to withdraw and transfer F.C.O.P.No.485 of 2017 from the file of Judge, Family Court, Warangal to the file of Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner explained the inconvenience being caused to the petitioner to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Warangal undertaking journey of 100 kms being lady and finally requested to dispense with her appearance before the Court, in case the Court is not inclined to withdraw and transfer the case. Though notice served on respondent, none appeared. F.O.P. is pending before the Judge, Family Court, Warangal and that the petitioner allegedly filed DVC at Karimnagar. Therefore, on the ground of pendency of DVC, F.O.P. cannot be withdrawn and transferred. Even if F.O.P. is transferred to Karimnagar Court, that cannot be tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

The other ground that the petitioner pleaded inconvenience to appear before the Court at Warangal. No doubt, it is difficult to undertake journey to appear before the Court on every date of adjournment. In case F.O.P. is withdrawn and transferred from Warangal to Khammam, the respondent has to face same difficulty. The degree of difficulty may vary from men to women, but that itself is not a ground to decide the petition. According to Section 11 of the Family Court's Act, if there is any serious allegation touching the character of either of the parties, the Court may proceed with the trial in-camera.

The Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam1 laid down certain guidelines for recording evidence in matrimonial cases. Those guidelines are modified by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh2. However, laid down three guidelines and the one of the guideline is that after completion of reconciliation, in the event of failure, the parties may chose to examine by video conference and if they gave consent for such video conference, the Court can proceed to record evidence of witnesses by video conference, but till that stage, the petitioner has to appear before the Court only for limited purpose of reconciliation.

Therefore, the presence of the petitioner on the dates of adjournments except on the date of reconciliation and for record her cross examination, is dispensed with as long as she being represented by counsel, this will not preclude the Judge, Family Court from passing any order in accordance with law. Whenever, the petitioner appears before the Court in connection with F.O.P, the respondent is directed to pay travelling allowance and other incidental expenses including stay and food etc. of the petitioner and the person accompanied with her.

With the above direction, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 24.10.2018 kvrm 1 (2017) 4 SCC 150 2 (2018) 1 SCC 1