PRASANNA KASINI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the impugned judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed transmission of the case within one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other side.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of the travails of a woman left alone with two children to prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. It is also contended that the facts of the case unfold a reprehensible deceitful conduct on the part of the husband which further should have restrained the High Court from transferring the case. It is also specifically pointed out that the allegation of bias on which the transfer petition was filed was based on the fact that a relative of the wife was employed as a Junior Assistant in the District Court at Sangareddy and another relative was working as Head Constable in the Women Police Station at Sangareddy, where the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was situated. The bias alleged was the influence exerted by the above two. It is specifically pointed out from Annexure P-1 in the rejoinder that the Junior Assistant was transferred from the District Court under which the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was functioning.