Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 168 (AP)

Ambujalapu Vara Lakshmi v. Ambujalapu Siva Prasad

2023-01-20

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, with a prayer to transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, insofar as necessary for the purpose of deciding this application, is that the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was performed on 07.03.2015 according to the Hindu Marriage rites and customs. The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for some period. Later, the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the respondent and his family members. When the respondent alleged that she failed to get pregnancy, both of them went for doctor consultation at Apollo Hospital and Jagruthi Specialty Pathology Laboratory. They collected blood samples and gave a report stating that the petitioner is suffering with HIV positive and the result of the respondent was found to be negative. Basing on the same, the respondent filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The allegations of the respondent are all false. Petitioner filed O.P.No.3 of 2019, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili, for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed M.C.No.24 of 2018 for maintenance. These two applications are pending within the jurisdiction of Yelamanchili Court. The respondent is attending the said cases. He filed the application before the Court for sending her blood samples. It is not possible for the petitioner to attend each and every adjournment at Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram. She has every threat, if she attends the Court there. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that the petitioner need not attend each and every adjournment at Pithapuram Court. There is no provision to compel her to attend each and every adjournment. The distance between Pithapuram and Yelamanchili is only 86 kilometers and both the places are having road and rail facility. In H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was recorded and Exhibits were marked and counsel for the petitioner herein cross examined the witnesses. Petitioner never pointed out any difficulty while pursuing her defence in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018. After four years and after examination of all the witnesses, she filed the petition. In H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was recorded and Exhibits were marked and counsel for the petitioner herein cross examined the witnesses. Petitioner never pointed out any difficulty while pursuing her defence in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018. After four years and after examination of all the witnesses, she filed the petition. The provisions of Sections 19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be overlooked. Respondent is relying upon the judgment of Telangana High Court in Malyala Bhagya @ Rallabandi Amulya vs.Rallabandi Ramanachary 2021 (5) ALT 592 (S.B.). Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Now, in deciding the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Pithapuram, is liable to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Yelamanchili? Point: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that for the convenience sake, the petitioner approached this Court to get the transfer of H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 and she being a female, she cannot alone attend the Court at Pithapuram, as such, relief may be granted. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner did not disclose in the affidavit that H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 is part heard and by not revealing true facts, she filed this application and in support of his contention, he would rely upon Malyala Bhagya's case (1 supra). 7. There is no dispute that the respondent herein in the capacity of the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, seeking dissolution of marriage. There is also no dispute that the petitioner herein filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights at Yelamanchili Court and she further filed a maintenance case before the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The contention of the respondent that in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018 filed by him, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and they were cross examined by the respondent therein, is not disputed. So, admittedly, the case in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is a part heard case. There is no whisper in the entire affidavit that the said case is part heard. There is every reason to believe that the petitioner filed this application without revealing said fact. 8. So, admittedly, the case in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is a part heard case. There is no whisper in the entire affidavit that the said case is part heard. There is every reason to believe that the petitioner filed this application without revealing said fact. 8. In Malyala Bhagya's case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent dealing with the contention in the said case, the Telangana High Court held that the law, as it stand today, does not permit the Court to exercise the inherent powers to transfer ignoring the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This Court would like to make it clear that even without going into the legal aspects governing Sections 19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, the fact remained is that the H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is a part heard where the present petitioner chosen to cross examine the evidence adduced by her husband. So, after the respondent herein completed his evidence, the petitioner chosen to file this application. The petitioner did not explain as to why she kept quiet all these days without approaching this Court and allowed the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 9. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that as H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is already part heard, I see no reason to grant the relief. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.