Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Goriparthi Gayatri vs Goripathi Srinivasa Rao on 3 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD513, 2003(2)ALT367, 2003 A I H C 1758, (2003) 1 HINDULR 631, (2003) 2 MARRILJ 721, (2003) 2 ANDH LT 367, (2003) 2 ANDHLD 513, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 860, (2003) 2 CURCC 107
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The petitioner/wife filed this transfer C.M.P. for withdrawal of H.M.O.P. 5/2002 from the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the marriage having been celebrated on 11.4.2001 as per Hindu customs and rites at the house of the respondent and their marriage was consummated. It is further stated that the respondent has been harassing the petitioner for dowry and instigating her to commit suicide. The petitioner also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 15/2002 on the file of learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repally, Guntur. It is further stated that the respondent filed H.M.O.P. 5/2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District for grant of divorce. It is further stated that the petitioner, however, entered appearance through an advocate of Repally, Guntur District and filed her counter in the said proceedings, whereas the respondent has been avoiding to receive notice in M.C. No. 15/2002 filed by her referred to supra. It is further stated that since the respondent is a practicing advocate at Avanigadda, the petitioner is unable to get the proper legal assistance. It is also further pleaded that there is a threat to her life also and in such circumstances, the relief of transfer has been prayed for.
3. Sri V.C.H. Naidu, the learned counsel representing the petitioner/wife had taken me through the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer C.M.P. and had contended that the fact that the respondent is a practicing advocate at Avainigadda is not in dispute. The learned counsel also had contended that the fact that the petitioner had engaged a counsel of Repally, Guntur District also is not in dispute. No doubt, the respondent had controverted several other allegations, which had been made in the transfer CMP. The fact that M.C. No. 15/2002 filed by the petitioner on the file of learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repally also is not in dispute.
4. Per contra, Sri Koteshwar Rao, representing Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the respondent, no doubt, is a practicing advocate, but the mere fact that the respondent is a practicing advocate by itself cannot be a ground for ordering the transfer of HMOP from the file of learned Senior Civil Judge's Court, Avanigadda to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Tenali. The learned counsel also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is unable to get legal assistance at Avanigadda is not a true allegation for the reason that there is no averment made relating to which of the advocates the petitioner had approached at Avanigadda and who had refused to take up the case. These allegations are vague allegations just with a view to harass the respondent who is a practicing advocate. It was also further contended that there is no question of threat to life at all and the said allegation is coined only for the purpose of getting the matter transferred from one court to another Court just to suit her convenience and with a view to put the respondent into trouble who is a professional.
5. Heard both the learned counsel.
6. The facts had already been narrated above and the same need not be repeated again. The present transfer CMP is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband praying for transfer of HMOP 5/2002 from the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, to the file of learned Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali. It is not in dispute that the petitioner already had filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 15/2002 on the file of learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Reapply. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is a practicing advocate at Avanigadda and no doubt there is some controversy between the parties relating to the averment that no advocate at Avanigadda is inclined to take up the petitioner's case. However, the fact remains that the petitioner engaged an advocate of Repally in this regard. The other factual details relating to this aspect need not be further gone into for the purpose of deciding the present transfer CMP.
7. In view of the allegations made by the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts explained in paras E, F & G of the transfer CMP, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had made out a case for ordering transfer and accordingly HMOP No. 5/2002 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, this transfer CMP is ordered. No order as to costs.