Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suri Surya Sridevi vs Suri Abhinav on 24 February, 2025
APHC010103682024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 125/2024
Between:
Suri Surya Sridevi ...PETITIONER
AND
Suri Abhinav ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. AKHILA NAIDU PANCHADI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, for trial.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 14.04.2022 at DNR Conventional Hall, Samarlakota, East Godavari District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife is staying separately at her parents' house at Peddapuram, East Godavari Judicial District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that, she filedH.M.O.P.No.133 of 2023, against the respondent/husband on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication.
II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filedF.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, r/w Section 7 of Family Court Act, seeking for grant of divorce by dissolving the marriage held in between both the spouses. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately and also depending upon her parents at Peddapuram, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Peddapuram to Vijayawada to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.133 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/wife herein and the same is also pending for adjudication before Senior Civil Judge Court at Peddapuram and that she is constrained to file the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that counter-affidavit has been filed before the Registry. She would further contend that respondent/husband is residing at Bangalore and working as a software employee.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance in the case of Chakradharamahanthi Venkata MaikyaPrasuna Vs Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Ramana Murthy 1 , wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 06.12.2018, in a batch of Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, held as follows:
97. In view of my foregoing discussion, the following are few guidelines to exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 C.P.C.
in matrimonial cases, in addition to guidelines of Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (referred supra)
1. When a petition is filed on the ground of inconvenience of the parties to appear before the Courts, the Courts are required to serike the balance between the right of the 1 2018 O Supreme (AP) 869 petitioner and respondent, to ensure access to justice to both parties.
2. The Court has to weigh the inconvenience being caused to both the parties and if, the inconvenience of one of the party outweighs the inconvenience of the other party, the Court may depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, exercise power and withdraw the pending matrimonial case from one Court and transfer the same to the other Court.
3. When a petition under Section 13(1) and Section 9 or any other petition is pending between the same parties on the file of two different Courts, the Court may depending upon the circumstances, exercise power under Section 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act, though Section 21-A would not confer general power of transfer under Section 24 C.P.C, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry (referred supra).
4. In case, the transfer is sought on the ground of inability to meet the expenses for travel, the Courts are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh" (referred supra)
5. When two petitions are pending between two parties to the matrimonial case, the parties are seeking a direction to the Courts under the control of High Court to club both the cases, such power cannot be exercised by the High Court or a District Court, while exercising power under Section 24(2) C.P.C and in such case, the Courts below shall follow the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in DronavajjulaVidyamba Vs Vallabhajosyula Lakshmi Venkayanma (referred supra).
6. When a petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C, complaining life threat or threat to personal property, the Courts have to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh v. PopatRambhajiSonawane (referred supra).
7. The matrimonial cases pending on the file of Judge, Family Court shall not be withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge's Court as the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted by Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and can be transferred to any other Family Court subject to the guidelines referred supra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Kaligithi Priyanka Vs. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi,2 wherein this Court held as follows:
"The question in this case is whether this Court can transfer from the file of a Family Court to a civil Court. As already stated, in the absence of constitution of a Family Court, the civil Court is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matrimonial cases, by virtue of the provisions of Section 8. Therefore, in places where Family Court is not established, as the local Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial cases, such local Courts are competent to try the matrimonial cases of the nature which are mentioned in the Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. In such a case, there may not be any bar under Section 8 of the C.P.C. from transferring the cases pending in a Family Court to such civil Courts.
When there are Courts, equally competent to consider and determine the matrimonial disputes, which have jurisdiction 2 2020(3) ALD87 either under Hindu Marriage Act for any other law applicable it is rather difficult to draw any such distinction only on the premise of hierarchal differentiation among the cadres of the Presiding Officers manning either the family Court or the Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction conferred with matrimonial jurisdiction".
6. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Akhila Naidu Panchadi, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Perused the material available on record.
8. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house and depending upon her parents at Peddapuram, East Godavari District and she also filed H.M.O.P.No.133 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, r/w Section 7 of Family Court Act. The relief sought by the respondent/husband herein and petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023, is to dissolve the marriage between both the spouses, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since, there is no Family Court at Peddapuram, East Godavari District, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, is having jurisdiction to try the matters arose out of under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
9. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA3, held by considering the fact that "if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed."
10. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S.SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA4, held as follows:
"9. The cardinal principles for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."
11. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the 3 (2000) 10 SCC 304 4 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
12. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent/husband herein is residing at Bangalore and working as a software employee, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, "except on the days when his personal appearance is required as per law", before the said Court.
13. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. The learned Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.537 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, "except on the days when his presence is required as per law". Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, on 28.03.2025, at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 24.02.2025 CVD