Telangana High Court
Ambati Sukrutha vs Anil Kumar Telugu Kukkala on 27 July, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.219 of 2019
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the petitioner/wife, requesting to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 from the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and transfer the same to any Family Court, at Warangal, for trial and disposal, in accordance with law.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/ husband was performed on 23.02.2017 at Gadwal TTD Kalyanamandapam, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Subsequently, disputes arose between the couple. The respondent/husband started harassing the petitioner/wife physically and mentally demanding additional dowry, on the instigation of his family members. In spite of efforts of the parents of the petitioner/wife and her well wishers to resolve the disputes, the respondent/husband did not change his attitude and filed the subject F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking dissolution of marriage. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner/wife started residing with her parents at Warangal. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent/husband, the petitioner/wife lodged a report with the 2 Dr.SA, J Tr.CMP.No.219/2019 Women Police Station, Warangal against the respondent/husband and his family members, which was registered as a case in Crime No.130 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The distance between Warangal and Hyderabad is about 145 kilometres. It is inconvenient for the petitioner/wife to undertake said travel, all alone, on each and every date of adjournment to defend the case at Hyderabad. Moreover, no inconvenience or hardship would be caused to the respondent/husband if the request of the petitioner/wife is considered and ultimately prayed to allow the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that the petitioner/wife harassed the respondent/husband mentally. Vexed with her attitude, the respondent/husband filed the subject F.C.O.P. No.902 of 2019 seeking dissolution of marriage. There are no grounds to grant the relief sought by the petitioner/wife and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination is:-
"Whether the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 from the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and transfer the same to any Family Court, at Warangal, be acceded to?"
6. POINT:- Here, it is apt to refer to the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of 3 Dr.SA, J Tr.CMP.No.219/2019 Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in ChejerlaSrilakshmi Vs. Chejerla Ramesh Babu1, wherein, the erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:
"The Apex Court took note of inconvenience being caused to the parties but not the inconvenience to the wife alone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case adverting to the earlier judgment rendered in "Ram GulamPandit v. Umesh J. Prasad" and "RajwinderKaur v. Balwinder Singh" (as referred in the judgment) and opined that all the authorities are based on the facts of the respective cases and they do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent. Thereafter, it noted that taking advantage of the leniency shown to the ladies by this Court, number of transfer petitions are filed by women and, therefore, it is required to consider each petition on merit. Then, the Court dwell upon the fact situation and directed that the husband shall pay all travel and stay expenses to the wife and her companion for each and every occasion whenever she was required to attend the Court. From the aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that the Court felt that the transfer petitions are to be considered on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine manner."
7. In the instant case, the ground putforth by the petitioner/wife to transfer the subject F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 filed by the respondent/husband is her inconvenience to travel from Warangal to Hyderabad to attend the Court at Hyderabad. While dealing with similar situations, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court were of the opinion that in a petition to transfer a case from one Court to another Court under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the inconvenience of both the parties that is to be taken into 1 2018 (4) ALD 162 4 Dr.SA, J Tr.CMP.No.219/2019 consideration, but not the inconvenience of the wife alone and that transfer petitions are to be considered on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine manner. Normally this Court is inclined to allow the applications of this nature, where there are genuine reasons/circumstances to transfer the case from one Court to another. As far as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are concerned, the inconvenience said to be caused to the petitioner/wife to attend the Court at Hyderabad cannot be a ground to grant the relief sought by her in this petition. If a party (wife) wants to divert the jurisdiction of a particular Court by filing a transfer petition, such party must show strong and justifiable cause for such diversion. More particularly, when a transfer petition is filed on the ground of inconvenience of a party to appear before a Court, the Courts are required to strike the balance between the rights of the petitioner as well as the respondent to ensure equal justice to both parties. Transfer of a case from one Court to another Court by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 24 of CPC cannot be done mechanically and on mere asking, unless substantial and justifiable cause is shown. Furthermore, it is pertinent to state that the parameters governing to determine a criminal case are distinct from the subject F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 filed for divorce. Both the cases are required to be tried and disposed of by different Courts. So also, the Court before which the subject F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 is pending, has jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the subject O.P. There will be no conflict of decisions if the subject cases are determined by the Courts before which they are pending. Merely because it is 5 Dr.SA, J Tr.CMP.No.219/2019 inconvenient to the petitioner/wife to travel from Warangal to Hyderabad to defend the subject F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019, it cannot be a ground to transfer the subject O.P. to the Family Court at Warangal. There are no other justifiable grounds in this petition. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that grounds raised by the petitioner/wife do not justify the relief sought by her in this petition. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Transfer CMP, shall stand closed.
_______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 27.07.2020 ssp