Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 521 (TS)

Kalangi alias Kummari Varsha v. Kalangi Deepak

2022-08-08

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner/wife has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for withdrawal of OP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District and to transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. 2. Notice is served on the respondent/husband. He has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the petition averments. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court. Perused the material available on record. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner/wife is entitled for transfer of OP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District as prayed for. 4. In her affidavit, the petitioner/wife has stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage was performed on 06.07.2020 at CSR St. John’s Church, Godavarikhani, as per the Christian tradition. Both of them led comfortable life for some time. Thereafter, the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner, beat her on 06.02.2021, caused injuries with the blade, she was treated in the hospital and she was driven out of her matrimonial house. Then, she started living with her parents and she is constrained to file a criminal case before the police of Bhadrachalam Town on 12.06.2021, vide Crime No.240 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act wherein the police have filed a charge sheet and it is now pending, vide CC No.954 of 2021 before the concerned Magistrate’s Court. She has also filed MC No.18 of 2021 and DVC No.5 of 2021 pending before that Court at Bhadrachalam. In the meanwhile, the respondent/husband has filed OP No.4 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, which is at a distance of more than 250 k.m. It is causing lot of inconvenience for her to commute from Kothagudem to Godavarikhani, as such requested for withdrawal of OP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani and to transfer the same to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. 5. The respondent/husband has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the petition averments. 5. The respondent/husband has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the petition averments. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner/wife has filed a criminal case, maintenance case and domestic violence case at Bhadrachalam and at no point of time, she appeared before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani in OP No.4 of 2022. Since she has not attended the Court at Godavarikhani at any time, there is no justification in her request for transfer of OP No.4 of 2022 from the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani to the jurisdictional Court at Kothagudem. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife seeks to submit that the remaining cases are pending only at Bhadrachalam and since there is no Senior Civil Judge’s Court or District Court at Bhadrachalam, the petitioner has been requesting to transfer this matter from Godavarikhani to Kothagudem where there is Senior Civil Judge’s Court and there is also a District Court. From the pleadings, it is clear that the parties are Christians and they are governed by Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and accordingly, OP No.4 of 2022 was filed before the VI Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani. Though the respondent has resisted this transfer petition stating that at no point of time, the petitioner has appeared before the Court at Godavarikhani, considering the fact that three other cases as indicated above i.e., criminal case, domestic violence case and maintenance case filed by the petitioner/wife are pending at Badrachalam and if OP is also transferred from Godavarikhani to Kothagudem, no prejudice would cause to both the parties. 7. That apart, considering the convenience of wife, who is an unemployed lady, I find justification in her request. Be it stated that the respondent has averred in his counter that there is a life threat to him in the hands of the petitioner’s parents and brothers and earlier they threatened to kill him. But he has not filed any documents along with his counter stating that he was threatened or that he has filed a criminal case either before the jurisdictional Court or made a complaint to the concerned police. 8. But he has not filed any documents along with his counter stating that he was threatened or that he has filed a criminal case either before the jurisdictional Court or made a complaint to the concerned police. 8. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sangeetha alias Shreya v. Prasant Vijay Wargiya, 2004 (13) SCC 407 held that if any threat is given, the respondent can always complain to the Court and that the Court would definitely consider such complaint on its own merits. The Apex Court further held that between husband and wife, the convenience of wife must prevail particularly when the wife has 2½ year old child. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife also relied on the principles laid in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the application under Section 24 of CPC held that the convenience of the wife and economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses, their behavioural pattern and their standard of life are essentials to be considered. 10. Therefore, when the facts the present case are tested on the touch stone of the principles laid in the above two decisions, the answer is in the positive. The wife is entitled for transfer of OP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District. However, the petitioner has requested to transfer the matter to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. Considering the fact that the parties are Christians and the OP No.4 of 2022 is filed for dissolution of the marriage under Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the said OP is ordered to be transferred to the Principal District Judge, Badradri-Kothagudem, instead of transferring it to the Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. HMOP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Pedapalli District, is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, for disposal in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. HMOP No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Pedapalli District, is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, for disposal in accordance with law. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani shall transmit the entire record in OP No.4 of 2022 duly indexed to the learned Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Tr.CMP shall stand closed.