NANDI VELUGU LAKSHMI BHARATHI Vs. NANDI VELUGU CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Nandivlugu Lakshmi Bharati, W/o Nandivelugu Chandrasekhar filed the transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Codn of the Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for transfer of OP No.69/2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and pass such other appropriate suitable order

(2.) Nandivelugu Chandrasekhar, hereinafter referred to as the 'husband' filed O.P.No.69/02 against Nandivelugu Bhagya Lakshmi, hereinafter referred to as 'the wife' for the relief of dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, and on 20.11.2002 the husband was present and on hearing for orders the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2002. As can be seen from the record, on 6.11.2002 it was recorded that "the respondent notice through R.P. returned as refused. Notice through Court not yet received from Chittoor. Petitioner called absent. Respondent called absent. Service is sufficient. Set ex parte. For petitioners evidence call on 8.11.2002". On 8.11.2002 PW1 was examined and for further evidence adjourned to 15.11.2002 and on 15.11.2002 PW2 was examined. However, the petitioner was absent for hearing and hence it was adjourned to 18.11.2002 and subsequent thereto 22.11.2002. On 22.11.2002, in view of the orders passed in CMP No.21415/02 in Tr. CMP No.428/2002 by this Court granting interim stay, no orders pronounced by the Court below and the OP was reopened and was further adjourned.

(3.) Sri Govinda Reddy, learned Counsel representing the wife-petitioner in Tr.CMP had taken me through the affidavit filed in support of the transfer CMP and also the reply affidavit and had submitted that in view of the facts the Court at Nuzvid has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the said OP and the husband-respondent had thought of filing the said OP on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District only with a view to harass the wife. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the father of the wife is a retired employee and physically impaired person and the wife is living at the mercy of her parents and she cannot attend the Court at Nuzvid since she has no means to undertake the journey from Chittoor to Nuzvid and the wife apprehends danger to her life in the event of her attending the Court at Nuzvid. The learned Counsel further submitted that the very fact that the unfortunate wife was set ex parte shows that she was unable to attend the Court. But, however, the fact remains that she was set ex parte and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 had been recorded. But, however, in view of the order of interim stay granted by this Court which was communicated to the Court below, no ex parte decree was passed and the matter was reopened and hence it cannot be said that the proceedings were terminated and in view of wide powers conferred on the Court under Section 24 of the Code definitely the said proceeding can be withdrawn and transferred as prayed for. The learned Counsel also had explained what will be the focus of a party even after the party is set ex parte in a particular proceeding. Strong reliance was placed on Sangam Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotyah, AIR 1955 SC 425. He had also placed reliance on a judgment in Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma v. Mulkluri Murlidhar Rao, AIR 1970 AP 194, and had submitted that existence of dispute regarding jurisdiction will not operate as bar to order transfer. The learned Counsel further had drawn my attention to the judgment rendered in V. Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao, 2003 (1) ALD 673, and contended that in ordering transfer it is the convenience of the wife that has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the learned Counsel had submitted that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and also in the light of the respective positions of the wife and husband, the transfer has to be ordered.