Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1202 (AP)

P Lakshmi Priya v. Onti Kommu Sharath Babu

2024-08-27

B SYAMSUNDER

body2024
ORDER : B Syamsunder, J. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Dushyanth Reddy as well as learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.V.Nitesh through virtual hearing. 2. This is wife’s petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022 from Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampeta of YSR Kadapa Judicial District to Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Penukonda of Ananthapuram Judicial District on the ground that now she is residing in her parents’ house at Puttaparthy Town of Ananthapuram Judicial District where she filed M.C.No.07 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Puttaparthy claiming maintenance from the respondent and also lodged a report before Station House Officer, Dharmavaram Police Station against the respondent for dowry harassment. 3. The petitioner submits that she has no source of income and male support to travel from Puttaparthy Town to Rajampet Town to put forth her defence in a divorce petition filed by the respondent with false grounds. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is working as a Software Engineer at Bangalore earning hand some salary who neglected to maintain her due to that she filed M.C.No.07 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy. The petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that convenience of the women should be preferred while adjudicating the transfer of matrimonial cases. She prays to allow the petition. 4. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is M.Sc Zoology Graduate and she is working as a Lecturer in Sri Satya Sai Degree College and her father is Government Employee working as Sub-Inspector of Police and they are financially well established. The respondent submits that he is working as Clinical Data Analyst, who is also taking care of his old aged mother and he is the only bread winner in the family and if request of the petitioner to transfer the case to Civil Court (Senior Division), Penukonda is considered he will be put to irreparable loss. The respondent submits that he is working as Clinical Data Analyst, who is also taking care of his old aged mother and he is the only bread winner in the family and if request of the petitioner to transfer the case to Civil Court (Senior Division), Penukonda is considered he will be put to irreparable loss. It is also the contention of the respondent that the petitioner lodged a report against him on 20.07.2021 and also filed M.C.No.07 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy to harass him and he filed H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet seeking for divorce wherein the petitioner engaged a counsel and enquiry also commenced and thereafter the petitioner has not adduced any evidence due to that the matter was posted for arguments and then the petitioner filed petition to reopen the case and to recall the evidence of PW-1, which were allowed and subsequently he was cross-examined on different dates and case was finally posted on 10.07.2024 on which date his side evidence was closed and now the matter is coming up for petitioner’s side evidence but the petitioner came up with a petition only to drag on the case. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now the petitioner is residing in her parents’ house at Puttaparthy Town and the mother of the petitioner is suffering from serious ill-health due to that no person can accompany with the petitioner to Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampet to proceed with enquiry in the said petition. He would further submit that respondent is admittedly working as a Software Engineer at Bangalore, he has to attend before the Court at Puttaparthy where the petitioner has filed petition seeking for maintenance due to that it may not be difficult for the respondent to attend before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda which is nearer to Bangalore city than Rajampet Town. He prays to allow the petition. 6. He prays to allow the petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that enquiry in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet already commenced wherein the petitioner engaged a counsel filed counter and now the matter is coming up for evidence of the petitioner, at that stage, the petitioner intentionally came up with this petition only to drag on the matter. He would further submit that marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at Rajampet and the enquiry in the divorce petition already commenced, it is not a fit case to consider the contention of the petitioner. He submits that, the petitioner filed petitions to reopen and recall the evidence of PW-1 and the petitioner being post-graduate cannot plead that she cannot travel to Rajampet. He prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 20.11.2020 in a function hall at Rajampet as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. It is not in dispute that the respondent/husband is working as Software Engineer at Bangalore. The petitioner is said to be previously residing at Dharmavaram of Ananthapuram District where she lodged a report against the respondent for dowry harassment, but it is not stated in her affidavit whether investigation in that case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the respondent. The petitioner said to be filed M.C.No.07 of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent pending on the file Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy of Ananthapuram District. It is also not is dispute that in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampet, the petitioner already engaged a counsel filed her counter, in the said case enquiry has been commenced which was once said to be posted for arguments and thereafter the petitioner said to be filed petition to recall the evidence of respondent as PW-1 and thereafter her counsel also crossexamined the respondent in divorce petition and now the divorce petition is coming up for evidence of the petitioner as respondent in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022. When the divorce petition filed by the husband is pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampet which is at an advance stage of hearing, it is not desirable to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case from Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampet to Senior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda. The similar view is expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhilasha Gupta, Appellant Vs Harimohan Guprta, Respondent (2021) 09 SC CK 0125 in Transfer Petition(S) (Civil) No.1027 of 2021, date 24.09.2021. However, the petitioner admittedly filed M.C.No.07 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy, due to that respondent can be directed to pay travel and stay expenses of the petitioner whenever she is required to attend before Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Rajampet. 8. In the result, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner/wife, whenever she is required to attend before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Rajampet in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet shall ensure that such payment is made to the petitioner on every occasion of her appearance before the Court in divorce petition filed by the respondent. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet shall dispose of the case in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in the present petition. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.