Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Binji Mahonari vs Kethinedi Venkata Subba Rao on 31 July, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 AP 52, (2013) 5 ANDHLD 446
Author: Samudrala Govindarajulu
Bench: Samudrala Govindarajulu
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Tr. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.100 of 2013 dated:31-07-2013. Binji Mahonari..PETITIONER Kethinedi Venkata Subba Rao..RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Naga Praveen Venkayalapati Counsel for the respondent : Sri N.Subba Rao <Gist: >Head Note: ?CITATIONS: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.100 of 2013 ORDER:
It is vehemently contended by the petitioner's counsel that when the respondent/husband is a resident of United States of America, from where the husband filed divorce petition O.P.No.1055 of 2012 in Family Court, Hyderabad, it would not be inconvenient for him whether the matter is in Hyderabad or in Chirala where the petitioner/wife seeks transfer. It is not convenience or inconvenience of the respondent, which is the criterion to be decided in a petition under section 24 C.P.C. It is only the relative convenience of both the parties to be decided. The petitioner's counsel placing reliance on DATLA PADMAVATHI DEVI v DATLA RAVINDRA RAYAPURAJU VERMA1 of the Supreme Court, contended that husband residing in United Stated is a ground for transfer. The Supreme Court did not state in so many words and did not lay down any proposition or principle that in case one of the parties reside abroad, it is a ground for transfer at the request of the other party. The Supreme Court categorically held as follows:
"We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in rejecting the prayer for transfer of the case to Visakhapatnam on the ground stated in the order. The prayer made by the appellant for transfer of the case is justified and deserves to be allowed."(Stress is mine) That was a decision rendered by the Supreme Court having regard to facts and circumstances of that case. It would be preposterous to contend that it is a decision in which Supreme Court laid down any principle as such.
It is pointed out by the respondent's counsel that all the parties in O.P.No.1055 of 2012 are not made as parties in this transfer petition and that therefore, this transfer petition is not maintainable. It is a valid objection. In any event, the prayer in this petition is being negatived on merits of this petition and not on the above technical objection.
In any event, the petitioner/wife need not attend the Court at Hyderabad on every date of adjournment in case she had engaged an advocate for her at Hyderabad in Family Court and it would be sufficient if she appears in Family Court on the dates of reconciliation and recording of her evidence in Court. For appearance on other dates, it is optional for her. Hence, the Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed.
___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 31st July,2013