Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 899 (AP)

Thummuru Mani Priya v. Thummuru Lazarus Reddy

2024-08-01

BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

body2024
ORDER : I have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.Venkat Chalasani. 2. This is wife’s petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of OP.No.802 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District Court-cum-Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna Judicial District to XIV Additional District Court-cum-Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna Judicial District, on the ground that she is facing some problems, and other reasons she lost her belief about justice in the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, due to that she intended to change the Court and seeking for transfer of the case. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Additional Family Court, Vijayawada is presided by woman Judge. She prays to allow the petition. 3. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent/husband that he filed OP No.802 of 2016, pending on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking for divorce, whereas the petitioner/wife filed OP No.1379 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was pending before Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. The respondent submits that in OP No.802 of 2016, the enquiry already commenced, and the evidence of the respondent was re-opened for further crossexamination on imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner/wife. It is also the contention of the respondent that the allegation of the petitioner that she lost belief about justice in the Court, where divorce petition is pending is not tenable, and she cannot be allowed to make any allegation against the Presiding Officer without any basis. He submits that the Presiding Officer of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada where OP No.802 of 2016 is pending transferred to some other Court, and now female Judge is presiding the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The petitioner in person would submit that she is facing some problems in prosecuting OP No.802 of 2016 before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, as no opportunity was given to her to proceed with enquiry. She would further submit that no Advocate is coming forward to defend her case at Vijayawada. She would further submit that she filed a petition before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking for interim maintenance, which was not considered, due to that she lost belief in the said Court that she will get justice. She would further submit that no Advocate is coming forward to defend her case at Vijayawada. She would further submit that she filed a petition before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking for interim maintenance, which was not considered, due to that she lost belief in the said Court that she will get justice. She prays to allow the petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner, and she has not specifically stated why she lost belief in the Court, where divorce petition is pending. He would further submit that when the respondent filed OP No.802 of 2016, seeking for divorce, the petitioner/wife also filed FCOP No.1379 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights, which case was pending before Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, due to that the respondent filed Tr.CMP No.50 of 2021 before this Court, which was allowed by transferring the restitution of conjugal rights petition, filed by the petitioner to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with divorce petition filed by the respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner also filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance from the respondent, vide FCOP No.1660/2018, which case is also pending before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 29.01.2015 in a hotel at Vijayawada, as per Christian rites, tradition and customs prevailing in their community, and then the petitioner blessed with a male child on 07.11.2015. Due to matrimonial disputes, the respondent filed OP No.802 of 2016, seeking for divorce on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, whereas the petitioner/wife also filed FCOP No.1379 of 2018, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, which was pending before Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, and now admittedly the said case was transferred to Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, as per Orders passed by this Court in Tr.CMP No.50 of 2021, dated 02.08.2022. It is also not in dispute that FCOP No.1660 of 2018 filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance to herself and her minor child from the respondent is also pending before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. It is also not in dispute that FCOP No.1660 of 2018 filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance to herself and her minor child from the respondent is also pending before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. Now, the petitioner is seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband to Additional Family Court, Vijayawada by stating that she is facing some problems and other reasons, she lost belief in the said Court, due to that she wants to transfer the case filed by the respondent to Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, which is presided by a woman Judge. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in her affidavit that what problems she faced and what are the reasons for her losing confidence in the said Court, and reasons for seeking transfer appears to be imposing costs on her to proceed with crossexamination, which appears to be the reason for the petitioner came-up with this petition, seeking for transfer. Now, admittedly the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada is presided by a woman Judge, and petition filed by the petitioner, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and seeking for maintenance are also pending before Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. The petitioner cannot be allowed to choose the Court, which amounts to Forum shopping. 7. Even otherwise, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik, (2022 Live Law (SC) 627) that “when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions”. 8. In the present case also, the petitioner is seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband and not sought for retransfer of restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by her, which is also pending in the same Court. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be imaginary, and there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner. This Court is of an opinion that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer OP.No.802 of 2016 on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. 9. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be imaginary, and there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner. This Court is of an opinion that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer OP.No.802 of 2016 on the file of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. 9. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. As petitions filed by both sides are more than Five years old, the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada shall dispose of all the petitions, i.e., OP No.802 of 2016, FCOP No.1379 of 2018 and FCOP No.1660 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, within a period of Six (06) 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. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.