Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 381 (AP)

Lalitha Kumari v. Annam Srinivasa Rao

2004-03-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
( 1 ) THE petitioner and respondent were married on 23-01-1999 and begot a child. In fact, they are closely related; in that the petitioner is the daughter of the maternal uncle of the respondent. However, differences arose between them and they are living separately. ( 2 ) ALLEGING that she has been subjected to harassment for bringing additional dowry, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 498-A I. P. C. , in the Court of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance in the Family Court, Hyderabad. Both the matters are said to be pending. The respondent filed O. P. No. 575 of 2003 in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner. This Tr. C. M. P. is filed seeking transfer of O. P. No. 575 of 2003 from the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Family Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner contends that she expects threat to her safety, if she is required to attend the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, and that it would be difficult for her to travel along with a boy, who is of tender age. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was driven out of the house by the respondent and his family members and ever since then, she was residing with her parents at Hyderabad. He submits that it would be very difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court of Visakhapatnam, that too, with a boy of tender age. He takes exception to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family court, Visakhapatnam, contending that the O. P. ought to have been presented in the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is residing. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the cause of action arose at Visakhapatnam, and that most of the witnesses hail from that place. He also contends that the respondent is an asthma patient and that it would be difficult for him to travel to Hyderabad, if the O. P. is transferred. ( 4 ) IT is rather unfortunate that the petitioner and respondent, who are not only closely related but also begot a child out of their marriage, are unable to live together. Instances of such nature are at the rise and it reflects change of values in life. ( 4 ) IT is rather unfortunate that the petitioner and respondent, who are not only closely related but also begot a child out of their marriage, are unable to live together. Instances of such nature are at the rise and it reflects change of values in life. Instead of making efforts to patch up differences whenever they arise, indiscriminate recourse is being had to the proceedings under Section 498-A I. P. C. , Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr. P. C. In a way, it reflects the weakening of the concept of the family life. A time has come, when social and other related agencies pay adequate attention to such issues or to invigorate the existing efforts. The effects of failure of a marriage are not confined to the parties to it. The families, from which the parties hail, feel the immediate impact. In most of the cases, such failures would have telling effect upon the efficiency of the parties to the marriage, in their employment, profession or other activities, children of such spouses are the worst sufferers. This however, is a larger issue, which needs to be addressed to, at various levels. In a way, it can be said that the phenomenon is nothing but the manifestation of the neglect of moral and social values in the system of education and other walks of life. ( 5 ) THE respondent filed the O. P. at Visakhapatnam on the ground that the cause of action arose there, and that the witnesses to be examined in the O. P. are from that place. Strictly speaking, no exception can be taken for such a course of action. However, the place of residence of the defendant/respondent in any proceedings is an important factor to decide the territorial jurisdiction of a Court. In the cause title in the O. P. itself, the petitioner was shown as living at Hyderabad. That being the case, the contention of the petitioner that the Family Court Hyderabad is the proper forum, cannot be brushed aside. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is living at Hyderabad with a child of 1 years of age. For her, to travel to Visakhapatnam along with child to defend the case, would certainly be a difficult task. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is living at Hyderabad with a child of 1 years of age. For her, to travel to Visakhapatnam along with child to defend the case, would certainly be a difficult task. It may be true that the health condition of the respondent is also not that sound so as to enable him to frequently travel to Hyderabad. A decent balance has to be struck between these two conflicting interests. This Court feels it appropriate to transfer the O. P. No. 575 of 2003 to the Family Court at Hyderabad, and to ensure that the respondent is not required to travel to Hyderabad frequently. ( 7 ) HENCE, the Tr. C. M. P. is allowed and O. P. No. 575 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, is transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad. The Family Court, Hyderabad is directed to ensure that the respondent herein is not required to be physically present before it, for not more than two hearings in the proceedings, on specified dates. No costs.