G.Deepthisri vs B.Raghusree

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking withdrawal of G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and transfer the same to the Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the 1st petitioner has filed FCOP.No.2785 of 2017 before the Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur and it is pending trial. Later, to harass the 1st petitioner and her minor children, who are residing at Puppalaguda, the respondent has filed G.W.O.P.No. 2767 of 2018 before the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking the permanent custody of Master Sourya Teja, who was born to the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Practically it has become very difficult for the petitioners to travel from Puppalaguda to L.B.Nagar to attend the proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018. It is convenient for the 1st petitioner, who is an I.T. Professional, to attend the Court at Miyapur for both the cases. Accordingly, requested to transfer G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 (Registered as FCOP.No.2767 of 2018 in e-courts) to the Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur.

This application is resisted by the respondent, who has filed a detailed counter stating that G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 pending on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cannot be transferred to any other Court in view of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The contents of the affidavit filed by the GPA Holder of 1st petitioner are not correct, in fact, the respondent has initially instituted G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking custody of his son Master Sourya Teja, and as a counter-blast to it, the 1st petitioner has filed FCOP.No.2785 of 2017 at Miyapur Court. Various other allegations are also levelled, which are not relevant for the purpose of consideration of this petition.

Heard on both sides.

The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and out of their wedlock, Master Sourya Teja-the 4th petitioner was born and at present, he is with the 1st petitioner. Now, the claim of the petitioners is that the respondent, as a counter-blast to FCOP.No.2785 of 2017 filed by the 1st petitioner, filed G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and that it is difficult for the petitioners who are residents of Puppalaguda, to attend the Family Court at L.B.Nagar. Hence, requested to transfer G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 to the Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur, where, FCOP.No.2785 of 2017 is pending.

Learned counsel for respondent has resisted this application stating that as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it is only the District Court is having the jurisdiction and that the Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur has no such jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Undisputedly, G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 is filed and pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, but not on the file of Principal District Judge. Chapter-III of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with the jurisdictions. Explanation to Section 7 mentions the nature of suits and proceedings to be tried before the Family Courts. As per Explanation (g) of Section 7(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, is maintainable on the file of Family Courts. Accordingly, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent, since the Family Courts Act, 1984 is a comprehensive enactment dealing with all suits and proceedings between the parties to a marriage as contemplated in Explanation to Section 7 of the said Act. A conjoint reading of Section 7 r/w. Section

8 makes it abundantly clear that the Additional Family Court is having jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding in relation to guardianship of a person or custody of, or access to any minor. Accordingly, the present G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 is registered and pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent on this aspect.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the 4th petitioner is a minor child and is with the 1st petitioner and only when she filed FCOP.No.2785 of 2017, which is pending on the file of Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur, as a counter-blast to it and to harass the 1st petitioner, her parents and minor child who are the petitioners 1 to 4, the present G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 is filed in the year 2018. Accordingly, as the 1st petitioner is an I.T. Professional, it is causing lot of inconvenience to her to attend the Courts at Kukatpally and L.B.Nagar for two different cases and it is convenient to both the parties to attend the Kukatpally Court, where the FCOP.No.2785 of 2017 is still pending.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, while dealing with transfer proceedings of matrimonial dispute, held that in this type of matters, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

Therefore, considering the facts of the case, as not only the 1st petitioner, but her parents and the minor boy i.e. the 4th petitioner have to attend the Court proceedings at Family Court, LB Nagar, as and when directed, I deem it fit to consider the request of the petitioiner.

In the result, the Transfer CMP is allowed. G.W.O.P.No.2767 of 2018 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Additional Family Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District shall transmit the entire record duly indexed, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.