Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 798 (AP)

Mithagiri Naveena Bai v. M. Kiran Kumar Singh

2020-12-11

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. Heard Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was celebrated on 06.10.2011 at Markapur. Now, the admitted situation is that both the petitioner and respondent are living separately from each other. The petitioner is now residing at Markapur of Prakasam District and the respondent is a resident of Tirupati, who is stated to be a driver. 3. FCOP No. 166 of 2018 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for divorce on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Tirupati, against the respondent. 4. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that she filed M.C. No. 47 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent for maintenance, which is pending on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur and DVC No. 24 of 2018, which is also pending on the file of the same Court at Markapur, against the respondent and his family members. According to the petitioner, the respondent is appearing in the above M.C. and in D.V.C. he is avoiding to receive notice. The petitioner now contends that she is finding it hard to attend the Court at Tirupati, which is about 300 k.ms. from Markapur. Not only her personal inconvenience but also financial issues are the factors, which according to her, are required to consider with reference to her request of transfer. She has claimed that she is being maintained by her parents and that she did not have any income to her own. She also points out that since the respondent has to attend the Courts at Markapur, if the above divorce O.P. is transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Markpaur, the respondent would not suffer any difficulty. 5. Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to these facts and circumstances states that the enquiry is yet to commence in the divorce petition and if the same is transferred to Markapur, it would be more convenient to both the parties. 6. 5. Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to these facts and circumstances states that the enquiry is yet to commence in the divorce petition and if the same is transferred to Markapur, it would be more convenient to both the parties. 6. However, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that it would be inconvenient for the respondent to attend the Court at Markapur, if this divorce petition is transferred. It is further stated that the respondent is a driver at Tirupati and in as much as the matter is coming up for enquiry and as a part-heard at Tirupati, the respondent is prepared to complete this enquiry without any loss of time. Thus, setting out personal inconvenience of the respondent to attend the Court at Markapur and pointing out that conduct of the case at Tirupati would be more beneficial for the parties, a request is made not to consider transfer of the case pending at Tirupati. 7. In the above circumstances, the point that emerges for determination is whether the petitioner has made out grounds to transfer the divorce petition now pending at Tirupati to the Court at Markapur? 8. In the given facts and circumstances, the question of convenience bears any amount of importance and significance. The petitioner is a woman and the fact remains that she is under the protection of her parents as well as for her sustenance. Filing of M.C. itself is pointer in this context, by her against the respondent. 9. The respondent being a driver, obviously did not have similar financial strain, which the petitioner is facing and is capable of earning on his own. It is also brought to the notice of this Court in the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondent is that now the respondent is paying maintenance to the petitioner regularly. But, this fact is seriously disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that no amount is paid towards maintenance by the respondent to her. 10. Another factor to consider in this context is pendency of two other matters in the Court at Markapur against the respondent instituted by the petitioner. Very nature of those proceedings require his attendance in the Court concerned on the dates of hearing. Thus, the respondent has to visit Markapur, whenever necessary to attend to these cases. 10. Another factor to consider in this context is pendency of two other matters in the Court at Markapur against the respondent instituted by the petitioner. Very nature of those proceedings require his attendance in the Court concerned on the dates of hearing. Thus, the respondent has to visit Markapur, whenever necessary to attend to these cases. Whereas, the petitioner should attend the Court at Tirupati only for the purpose of one case and possibly as an option. 11. When these factors are considered cumulatively, on comparison the balance lies more in favour of the petitioner than the respondent. That being the predominant factor to consider, the request of the petitioner has to be considered. Thus, the objections raised on behalf of the respondent stand overruled. 12. Transfer of pending matter from the Court of learned Family Judge to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge is not a bar and this question was considered in Kaligithi Priyanka v. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi (2020) 3 ALD 87 , enabling such course. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed and FCOP No. 166 of 2018 now pending on the file of the Court of learned Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, is withdrawn and is transferred on to the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, for disposal in accordance with law. No costs. 14. Interim order granted earlier if any, stands vacated. All pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.