RAMA MURTHY Vs. CH RAJYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sri filed the present transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' in short) praying for transfer of the cases, I.A. No.1191 of 2001 in O.S.No.1258 of 2001 for creating charge on house at Simhapuri, VSP, O.S.No.1258 of 2001 for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, O.P.No.215 of 2001 for granting judicial separation in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and M.C.No.51 of 2001 for monthly maintenance of Rs.500/ - in the Court of Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry to the file of the V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (Family Court, Visakhapatnam District) for proper hearing and pass such other appropriate orders. All these disputes are between the husband, the petitioner in the transfer CMP and the wife, Ch. Rajyalakshmi the respondent in the transfer CMP. The petitioner/husband also filed O.P.No.487 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had thoroughly taken me through several allegations made in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer CMP and had submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances which had been explained in detail the relief as prayed for may be granted. The learned Counsel also submitted that there is no Family Court at Rajahmundry and taking advantage of the same the respondent/ wife had filed several litigations in different Courts at Rajahmundry only with a view to put the petitioner into trouble. The learned Counsel also had explained several aspects, which go to show that the respondent/wife is very adamant and she is not interested even in the welfare of the children. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner in fact has been already giving Rs.250/- per month as interim maintenance from July, 2002 onwards towards her expenses. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the Courts at Rajahmundry have no jurisdiction to entertain the matters filed at Rajahmundry and those matters should have been instituted in the Courts at Visakhapatnam only and in order to harass the petitioner, the respondent deliberately filed all such cases at Rajahmundry. The learned Counsel also had explained that the petitioner is unable to attend these cases frequently since, such attendance is causing serious disruption to his official duties as Senior Assistant in Personnel Department of Port Trust. The learned Counsel also had explained that if the petitioner is put to financial troubles ultimately, it may result in disturbing the Engineering studies of his son also. The learned Counsel also had pointed out certain other health problems in this regard.

(3.) Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, the learned Counsel representing respondent/wife had initially raised an objection as to the maintainability of the transfer CMP on the ground that a composite transfer CMP of this nature cannot be maintained under Section 24 of the Code. The learned Counsel also had further pointed out that M.C.No.51 of 2001 was filed on the file of the Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not amenable to be transferred by exercising powers under Section 24 of the Code and in this view of the matter also the transfer CMP is a misconceived one. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the counter-affidavit filed and had pointed out the difficulties which respondent/ wife is facing. It was also explained that the respondent/wife has no property or source of income and that is the reason why she has filed M.C.No.51 of 2001 on the file of the Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry. The learned Counsel also submitted that the O.P. filed by the wife for judicial separation at Rajahmundry is first in point of time and subsequent thereto, the husband thought of filing O.P. for dissolution of marriage on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam and this itself shows that the transfer CMP is not a bona fide one. The learned Counsel further submitted that even in view of Section 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short) inasmuch as the O.P. filed by the wife for judicial separation being first in point of time, the later O.P. filed by the husband may have to be transferred to be tried along with the prior O.P. for the judicial separation. The learned Counsel also had taken me through paras 7,8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit and had explained the problems of the respondent/wife and while concluding the learned Counsel also had drawn my attention, to the aspect that at any rate the convenience of the wife may have to be taken into consideration while dealing with transfer of a matrimonial proceeding.