Dr. K.Manasa vs Billakanti Supreeth

The petitioner/wife has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to withdraw OP No.138 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to transfer the same to the learned Judge, Family Court, Nizamabad stating that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage took place on 30.12.2021, immediately after one month of the marriage, the respondent and his family members harassed her, created dangerous situation for her to stay in their house. Thereafter, she started living with her parents. The respondent/husband has also filed OP No.138 of 2022, which is pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

This petition is resisted by the respondent/husband. He filed a detailed counter. The necessary facts that are required for the purpose of this transfer petition as culled out from the counter are that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute, however, it is alleged that the petitioner left the marital home and blocked the phone numbers belonging to him and his family members till 12.06.2021. Thereafter, the respondent and his friend met the petitioner outside i.e., a coffee shop at Banjara Hills and tried to resolve the issue, but in vain, finally he got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.2021 for restitution of conjugal rights and as there was no response from the petitioner, he has filed OP No.138 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by dissolution of marriage.

It is further averred in the counter that thereafter, the petitioner has filed a case in Crime No.17 of 2022 before the Police, Mendora of Nizamabad District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He went to the police where the family members of the petitioner gave life threat to him, accordingly stated that there is a threat to his life if the matter is transferred to Nizamabad and prayed for dismissal of the application. It is further stated that on 28.02.2022 when he went to the Mendora Police Station, the family members of the petitioner threatened and he gave a report to the police and copy of the report is also annexed to the counter along with acknowledgement.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court. Perused the material available on record.

On careful perusal of averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counter, it is found that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner started living with her parents. However, the contention of the respondent/husband is that he tried his level best for restitution of conjugal rights and that he also met her after 12.06.2021 at a Coffee Shop at Banjara Hills and tried to resolve the issue and finally got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.2021 informing the petitioner to join his conjugal society. As there was no response from her side, he is forced to file OP No.138 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for dissolution of marriage. When a criminal case was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Crime No.17 of 2022 of P.S. Mendora, Nizamabad District, he went to the Police Station on 28.02.2022, there was a galata and the family members of the petitioner have threatened him and accordingly there is a threat to his life.

The petitioner is young lady, she is living with her parents and she is a doctor. Whereas the occupation of the respondent is shown as Chief Executive Officer of Yahvisri Infra Development Company, but he has denied the same stating that at present he is not doing any job and is totally depending on his parents. It may be stated that on a careful scanning of the entire material available on record, the respondent/husband has resisted this transfer petition only on the ground that for short period, they stayed together and that there is a threat to his life, if the matter is transferred to Nizamabad.

In this context, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sangeetha alias Shreya v. Prasant Vijay Wargiya 2004 (13) SCC 407 wherein it is held that if any threat perception is given to the respondent/husband, he is always at liberty to lodge a report before the police concerned or to complain before the concerned Court. If any such complaint is made, it will be considered by the Court or by the concerned police on its own merits. It is further held that between husband and wife, the convenience of the wife must prevail.

In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 the Apex Court while dealing with the similar facts held that the applicant/wife who is young lady aged about 21 years staying alone along with her aged parents, it is difficult for her to travel all the way from Chennai to Vellore to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by the respondent/husband seeking annulment of marriage, accordingly, considering the convenience of the wife transferred the matter from the Family Court, Vellore to the jurisdictional Family Court at Chennai.

The Apex Court further held that the cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of C.P.C. is that ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceedings and in matrimonial disputes whenever courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the courts have to take into consideration the social strata of the spouses, their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances under which both the parties are eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance and that given the prevailing socio economic paradigm in the Indian society generally it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked into at while considering the transfer application.

In the instant case, except making allegation that on 28.02.2022 when he went to the Mendora Police Station, the family members of the petitioner have threatened and that he gave a report to the police, no other allegation of threatening is made by the respondent against the petitioner. Even if any such threat is given, the respondent is always at liberty to initiate the appropriate legal action against the petitioner or her family members. It is not the case of the respondent/husband that he has been paying maintenance or that the petitioner is only residing at Hyderabad and intentionally filed this Tr.CMP to harass the husband.

In that view of the matter, considering the principles laid by the Apex Court in the above decisions and the scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, I find justification in the request of the petitioner/wife for withdrawal of FCOP No.138 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar and to transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Nizamabad.

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. FCOP No.138 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at Nizamabad, for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar shall transmit the entire record in FCOP No.138 of 2022 duly indexed, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Tr.CMP shall stand closed.