Docid # IndLawLib/1841145

(2022) 3 CivCC 135

TELANGANA HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH

JONNAGADDALA SWATHI — Appellant

Vs.

L. KARTHIKA CHAKRAVARTHY — Respondent

( Before : A. Venkateshwara Reddy, J. )
Tr.C.M.P. No. 4 of 2022
Decided on : 06-04-2022

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 24

Cases Referred

Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1148
Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh, (2005) 11 SCC 446 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 663
Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Deviprakash Thakar, 1996 (11) SCC 96 = 1996 LawSuit (SC) 1785
Kanagalakshmi v. A. Venkatesan, (2004) 13 SCC 405 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1067
Priyanka Batra v. Manish Batra, (2005) 12 SCC 236 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1716
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237
Sangeetha alias Shreya v. Prasant Vijay Wargiya, (2004) 13 SCC 407
Sarita Singh alias Babli Baghel v. A.P. Baghel, (2005) 12 SCC 376 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1497
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41
Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra, (2004) 13 SCC 411 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1056

ORDER

1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband
under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for withdrawal of FCOP No.994 of 2021
pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court Hyderabad and to transfer the same to the
Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar and pass any such other orders as this Court deems fit and proper.

2. Notice of the respondent/husband is served. He filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The detailed submissions have been made by both the parties,
which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to refer in detail
such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of the Court.

3. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is legally wedded
wife of the respondent, their marriage was solemnized on 26.11.2017, they led happy marital life for some
time and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child. Thereafter, differences arouse between
them, she was driven out of the house of the respondent and ever since then she is living with her parents.
The respondent has filed OP No.994 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for dissolution of marriage. It is causing lot of inconvenience to her to attend the Court at
Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing along with her minor child by travelling a distance of 200
kms, accordingly prayed to withdraw FCOP No.994 of 2021 from the file of Family Court, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad and to transfer the same to the Family Court at Karimnagar.
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter. The main averments of the counter are that the distance
between Karimnagar and Hyderabad is only 145 kms and not 200 kms as stated by the petitioner. It takes
hardly 2% hours by public transport to reach Hyderabad from Karimnagar. The petitioner did not appear
before the Court on 17.11.2021 and the Court is directed the petitioner to bring the child on 30.10.2021 and
also on 30.11.2021, but she has intentionally failed to produce the minor child. Though the matter was
adjourned to 18.02.2022 for filing counter, she in utter disobeyed of the court directions, failed to produce
the minor child at any point of time. He has taken a plea that he is ready and willing to pay the conveyance
charges to the petitioner for attending the Court on each and every date of hearing and that the
convenience of wife is not a ground for transfer of matrimonial dispute.

5. Section 24 of CPC deals with the general power of the High Court and District Courts for transfer of
proceedings from one court to another court. The claim of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded
wife of the respondent and that out of wedlock, she gave a birth to a male child, she along with her male
child are living with her parents. This aspect of the petitioner's case is not in dispute by the respondent. His
only contention is that the petitioner has failed to attend the proceedings before the Family Court
regularly. She has also failed to produce the minor child, despite instructions from the Family Court,
Hyderabad and that the respondent is ready to pay the conveyance charges of the petitioner for her
attendance on each and every date of hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband has relied
on the principles relied on the following decisions:

i) Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Deviprakash Thakar, 1996 (11) SCC 96 = 1996 LawSuit (SC) 1785;

ii) Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1148;

iii) Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra, (2004) 13 SCC 411 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1056;

iv) Kanagalakshmi v. A. Venkatesan, (2004) 13 SCC 405 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1067;

v) Priyanka Batra v. Manish Batra, (2005) 12 SCC 236 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1716;

vi) Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh, (2005) 11 SCC 446 = 2005 LawSuit (SC) 663;

vii) Sarita Singh alias Babli Baghel v. A.P. Baghel, (2005) 12 SCC 376 = 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1497; and

viii) Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma (unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.P. (Civil)
No.117-118 of 2004;

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife has relied on the principles laid in Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi v. Kishor babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 and argued that in such matrimonial disputes, the
convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband and the wife is entitled for
the withdrawal of FCOP pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad and to
transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar where she is living.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision reported in Sangeetha alias Shreya v. Prasant Vijay
Wargiya, (2004) 13 SCC 407 while dealing with the similar facts held that between husband and wife, the
convenience of the wife must prevail particularly when the wife has a 2 y2 year-old child.

8. In Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41 also in a case of divorce filed by the
husband against the wife, the Apex Court held that it is the wife's convenience that must be looked into
while considering the transfer petition.

9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the respondent/husband that the
petitioner /wife is gainfully employed and that she is able to maintain herself and their minor son. It is also
not the case of the respondent that he has been paying the maintenance either to his wife or to their minor
child. In such facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondent/husband has not taken any steps ever
since the birth of minor child either to look after him or to pay any maintenance, such offer of the husband
that he is ready and willing to pay the conveyance charges to the wife for her appearance before the Judge,
Family Court at Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing has no bona fides and not acceptable.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the decision laid by the learned
counsel for the respondent/husband. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all the above decisions held
that the convenience of wife can be compensated by the husband by paying conveyance charges, each case
depends on its own facts and the principles laid in the above decisions are distinguishable with the facts of
the present case. A close similarity between one case and another case itself is not sufficient to apply the
principles laid in the above decisions, more so, in view of the fact that there are no bona fides in the offer
made by the husband and it is not his case that he has either paid maintenance or other expenses to his
minor child or to his wife at any point of time.

11. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the principles laid in the decisions 1 to 8 cited supra relied
by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband are not helpful to the respondent as there are no bona
fides in the offer made by the respondent/husband.

12. Whereas, in view of the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi
and Sangeetha's cases (8th & 9th supra), between the convenience of husband and wife, the convenience of
wife along with minor child will prevail and it has to be given preference over the convenience of the
respondent/ husband.

13. In that view of the matter and for the reasons stated above, I find justification in the request of the
petitioner/ wife for withdrawal of FCOP pending on the file of Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad and to
transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar.

14. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. FCOP No. 994 of 2021 pending on the
file of the Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to
the Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the request of the learned counsel for the
respondent, the learned Judge, Family Court at Karimnagar is directed to expedite the disposal of the
matter, without granting unnecessary adjournments. The learned Judge, Family Court at City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire record in FCOP No. 994 of 2021 duly indexed, within one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed.