BINJI MAHONARI Vs. KETHINEDI VENKATA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is vehemently contended by the petitioner's counsel that when the respondent/husband is a resident of United States of America, from where the husband filed divorce petition O.P. No. 1055 of 2012 in Family Court, Hyderabad, it would not be inconvenient for him whether the matter is in Hyderabad or in Chirala where the petitioner/wife seeks transfer. It is not convenience or inconvenience of the respondent, which is the criterion to be decided in a petition under section 24 C.P.C. It is only the relative convenience of both the parties to be decided. The petitioner's counsel placing reliance on Datla Padmavathi Devi v. Datla Ravindra Rayapuraju Verma : (2002) 10 SCC 500 of the Supreme Court, contended that husband residing in United Stated is a ground for transfer. The Supreme Court did not state in so many words and did not lay down any proposition or principle that in case one of the parties reside abroad, it is a ground for transfer at the request of the other party. The Supreme Court categorically held as follows:

(2.) It is pointed out by the respondent's counsel that all the parties in O.P. No. 1055 of 2012 are not made as parties in this transfer petition and that therefore, this transfer petition is not maintainable. It is a valid objection. In any event, the prayer in this petition is being negatived on merits of this petition and not on the above technical objection.

(3.) In any event, the petitioner/wife need not attend the Court at Hyderabad on every date of adjournment in case she had engaged an advocate for her at Hyderabad in Family Court and it would be sufficient if she appears in Family Court on the dates of reconciliation and recording of her evidence in Court. For appearance on other dates, it is optional for her. Hence, the Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed.