SNEHALATHA Vs. S RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC for brevity). She prays this Court to transfer the original petition being O.P.No. 388 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad ('Family Court, Hyderabad', for brevity) to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada ('Family Court, Vijayawada' for brevity). Be it noted that the said O.P. was filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for brevity) seeking decree to annul and dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) The necessary facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner is wife of respondent. The marriage between them solemnized on 13-10-1995 at Gopalapuram village, West Godavari District. After that, the petitioner and the respondent admittedly set up their matrimonial home in Hyderabad. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent ill-treated her on the ground that she did not bring sufficient dowry by reason of which she suffered physical and mental harassment in one way or another. Ultimately, in January, 2001, the respondent left her at Gopalapuram with her parents. He also gave ultimatum that she would be taken back to Hyderabad only if she brings another sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Her parents could not arrange such huge amount and all the efforts for conciliation failed. She is left with no option to continue with her parents at Gopalapuram. The respondent allegedly concocted a fictitious account of their marital life and filed O.P.No. 388 of 2001 before the Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. She is now required to take suitable steps to contest the O.P. Staying at Gopalapuram she is unable to prosecute the O.P. properly. Her father is an employee of Telecommunications Department at Gopalapuram and cannot afford to spare time and money for making frequent trips to Hyderabad or to finance her visits. The respondent's parents are permanent residents of Gunnampalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District, which is very close to Vijayawada. It is not only convenient if the O.P, is transferred to Vijayawada and the same would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent whereas if the O.P. is tried in Hyderabad she would have to make frequent trips to Hyderabad. Therefore, she prayed for transfer of the O.P.

(3.) This Court while ordering notice by order dt. 14-8-2001 stayed the trial in O.P.No. 388 of 2001. After receiving notice the respondent filed C.M.P.No. 16457 of 2001 seeking to vacate the order of stay dt. 14-8-2001. He also filed elaborate counter opposing the transfer. Indeed, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also sought to place on record a recorded audio tape allegedly containing the conversation between the respondent on one hand and Sri K. Babu Rao and Sri A. Subba Rao of Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District on the other. It is stated that K. Babu Rao is the petitioner's maternal uncle and A. Subba Rao is the former business partner of Babu Rao and both of them made phone call from a hotel room in Hospet. This Court declined permission to the learned Counsel to bring the recorded tape on record as the same was not supported by separate affidavit and also for the reason that for the purpose of deciding this application for transfer the same is not relevant.