Telangana High Court
Garikapati Laxmi Nandini vs Polavarupu Ravi Teja on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
Between:
Garikapati Laxmi Nandini,
D/o Anjaneya Prasad
... Petitioner
And:
Polavarupu Ravi Teja,
S/o P.Harikumar
...Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 26.03.2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
2
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
% 26.03.2025
Between:
# Garikapati Laxmi Nandini,
D/o Anjaneya Prasad
.....Petitioner
And:
$ Polavarupu Ravi Teja,
S/o P.Harikumar
....Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy,
learned senior counsel
for Ms. Nafisa, learned counsel on record.
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri C.Nageshwara Rao
learned senior counsel
for Sri K.R.Prabhakar,
learned counsel on record.
? Cases Referred:
1. (1981) 4 SCC 517
2. 2022 SCC Online SC 1199
3. (2005) 11 SCC 66
4. 2022 SCC Online SC 1199
5. (2023) SCC Online Bom 1926
6. 2023 SCC Online Bom 1982
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer FCOP.No.327 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally to the Family Court, Khammam.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Nafisa, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel on record for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, averred that she and respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2023 at Khammam as per Hindu rites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she and respondent left to Dubai 15.05.2023, where respondent abodes and is working; that on 20.05.2023, she came back to Hyderabad and later, she has been LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 4 residing at Khammam by performing office duties on 'Work from Home' mode, however, whenever there is necessity, she used to travel to Hyderabad. It is further averred that she and the respondent did not reside together at Hyderabad, and in fact, they spent together only 48 hours in Hyderabad; that in June, 2023, she stayed for some time at her mother-in-law's house at Hyderabad to take care of her mother-in-law when she underwent a surgery. It is further averred that as differences arose between her and respondent, the latter filed FCOP.No.327 of 2024 seeking dissolution of marriage before the Family Court at Prasanth Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
3.1. The petitioner further averred she has been residing with her parents at Khammam and as she is suffering with motion sickness and further, given the circumstances of threat to her life, it is difficult for her to travel all alone the distance of 196 kms from Khammam to Hyderabad to appear before the Court at Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing of the FCOP, which will have effect on her health and therefore, prayed this Court to grant the relief sought for.
LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 5
4. The respondent filed counter through his General Power of Attorney Holder-his mother inter alia denying the allegations made by petitioner in the affidavit and averred that respondent and petitioner lastly resided at Hyderabad and as such, the FCOP was filed in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. It is further averred that after marriage, petitioner and respondent stayed at the house of respondent at Hyderabad for two days and once respondent left to Dubai, petitioner went back to her apartment at Gachibowli, Hyderabad; that on repeated requests, in the month of November, 2023, petitioner went to Dubai, however, returned back to India, against the wishes of respondent, within a month on the pretext of getting a job at Hyderabad and thereafter abandoned respondent.
4.1. It is further averred that respondent is a resident of Dubai and based on nature of his job, he cannot take leave frequently and if the FCOP is tried in the Court at Hyderabad, he can directly travel to Hyderabad from Dubai and can go back to Dubai on the same day and on the other hand, if the FCOP is transferred to Khammam, he has to fly to Hyderabad from Dubai and again has to travel distance of 196 kms from Hyderabad to Khammam to LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 6 attend the Court proceedings. It is also averred that there is a life threat to respondent at Khammam as petitioner had already warned him so.
4.2. It is further averred that prior to marriage, petitioner had been living at Hyderabad and even as of now, petitioner is working and residing at Hyderabad. Respondent denied that petitioner is residing with her parents at Khammam and averred that in fact, petitioner is residing in a rented flat at Hyderabad and created a ground that she is residing with her parents at Khammam only for filing the present Tr.C.M.P. By contending thus, respondent prayed to dismiss the Tr.C.M.P.
5. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter filed by the respondent, denying the averments made in the counter. She stated that mere fact of receiving notice at Hyderabad by her does not form basis to conclude that she is residing at Hyderabad; that she has chosen a remote job which does not require her physical presence so as to enable her to work on 'Work from Home' mode; that she does not have any permanent residential address at Hyderabad and she travels to Hyderabad only when her presence is required at the Office at Hyderabad and during that time she stays LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 7 at her relatives place, which is the postal address to which notices were sent to her.
5.1. She specifically denied that there is threat to respondent in case he travels to Khammam and the same is created only to circumvent the discomfort that will be caused to him in case of travel to Khammam and hence, the same cannot be construed as a valid ground.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner specifically contended the petitioner and respondent did not live together for any considerable time at Hyderabad except for few hours or one or two days; that the petitioner continued to stay at Khammam with her parents, except for travelling to Hyderabad in case of exigencies in office. Therefore, a casual or place of temporary stay of petitioner cannot be construed or considered that both have resided together at Hyderabad and the same does not constitute 'residence' within the meaning of clause-(iii) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and further, does not satisfy the requirement of 'last resided together' under the said Act to invoke the jurisdiction of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukaptally, Hyderabad.
LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 8 6.1. Learned senior counsel for petitioner by referring to Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, contended that that FCOP has been filed at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by falsely claiming that the petitioner and respondent resided together at Hyderabad and in fact, they never resided together in Hyderabad except for few hours before the respondent left to Dubai. Therefore, the Court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction to try the FCOP.
7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jeewanti Pandey Vs. Kishan Chandra Pandey 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the aspect of residence under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is observed as hereunder:-
"In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of 'residence' something more than a temporary stay is required. It must be more or less of a permanent character, and of such a nature that the Court in which the respondent is sued, is his natural forum. The word 'resides' is by no means free from all ambiguity and is capable of a variety of meanings according to the circumstances to which it is made applicable and the context in which it is found. It is capable of being 1 (1981) 4 SCC 517 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 9 understood in its ordinary sense of having one's own dwelling permanently, as well as in its extended sense.
In its ordinary sense "residence" is more or less of a permanent character. The expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable time; to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place where a person has fixed home or abode. In Webster's Dictionary, "to reside" has been defined as meaning "to dwell permanently or for any length of time", and words like "dwelling place" or "abode" are held to be synonymous. Where there is such fixed home or such abode at one place the person cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit, e.g. for health or business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife and children, in an established home, his legal and actual place of residence is the same. If a person has no established home and is compelled to live in hotels, boarding houses are houses of others, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides."
7.1. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2 and Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Kamal Abrol 2 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 10 and others 3 in support of his contention that the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering transfer of case and prayed to allow this Tr.C.M.P.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent inter alia opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner, prior to marriage and even now, is residing at Hyderabad and therefore, the said ground pleaded by the petitioner for transfer of FCOP is trivial and futile.
8.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that admittedly, the petitioner's office is at Hyderabad and she being a Team Leader would be frequently travelling to Hyderabad in connection with her official duties, therefore the averment of the petitioner that she has motion sickness and as such, her travel from Khammam to Hyderabad will have effect on her health are all false. By contending thus, he prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP.
9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record. 3 (2005) 11 SCC 66 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 11
10. Perusal of record discloses that marriage of the petitioner and respondent took place at Khammam and both have resided together at Khammam only for three days and thereafter, both came down to Hyderabad and resided together at Hyderabad for couple of days before the respondent left to Dubai, as admitted by the respondent in the counter. However, the petitioner stated that they never resided together at Hyderabad and therefore, the requirement of Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not satisfied.
11. Further, it is to be noted that the respondent is represented by his mother as General Power of Attorney, hence, the contention putforth by the respondent that transfer of FCOP from Kukatpally to Khammam will cause inconvenience and hardship to him is untenable. Since the respondent is represented by GPA holder, except for recording his evidence, his presence before the Court is not necessary on each and every date of adjournment of the case.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 4 held as follows:
4
2022 SCC Online SC 1199 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 12 " The cardinal principle 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."
13. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 5, and observed as under:-
"In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would 5 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 13 definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience."
14. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 6 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:-
"The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband."
15. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.
16. In the case on hand, dehors the rival contentions putforth by learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties as regards the aspect of the petitioner and respondent last resided together, in the 6 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982 LNA, J TrCMP.No.498 of 2024 14 light of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.327 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally is transferred to the Family Court, Khammam, for disposal in accordance with law.
18. The Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.327of 2024, duly indexed, to the Family Court, Khammam, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 26.03.2025
Dr