AMBUJALAPU VARA LAKSHMI Vs. AMBUJALAPU SIVA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, with a prayer to transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, insofar as necessary for the purpose of deciding this application, is that the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was performed on 7/3/2015 according to the Hindu Marriage rites and customs. The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for some period. Later, the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the respondent and his family members. When the respondent alleged that she failed to get pregnancy, both of them went for doctor consultation at Apollo Hospital and Jagruthi Specialty Pathology Laboratory. They collected blood samples and gave a report stating that the petitioner is suffering with HIV positive and the result of the respondent was found to be negative. Basing on the same, the respondent filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The allegations of the respondent are all false. Petitioner filed O.P.No.3 of 2019, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yalamanchili, for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed M.C.No.24 of 2018 for maintenance. These two applications are pending within the jurisdiction of Yelamanchili Court. The respondent is attending the said cases. He filed the application before the Court for sending her blood samples. It is not possible for the petitioner to attend each and every adjournment at Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram. She has every threat, if she attends the Court there. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that the petitioner need not attend each and every adjournment at Pithapuram Court. There is no provision to compel her to attend each and every adjournment. The distance between Pithapuram and Yelamanchili is only 86 kilometers and both the places are having road and rail facility. In H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was recorded and Exhibits were marked and counsel for the petitioner herein cross examined the witnesses. Petitioner never pointed out any difficulty while pursuing her defence in H.M.O.P.No.14 of 2018. After four years and after examination of all the witnesses, she filed the petition. The provisions of Ss. 19 and 21 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be overlooked. Respondent is relying upon the judgment of Telangana High Court in Malyala Bhagya @ Rallabandi Amulya vs.Rallabandi Ramanachary 2021 (5) ALT 592 (S.B.). Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.