BADITHA PUSHPA Vs. BADITHA THATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the first respondent in FCOP No.1211 of 2021, on the file of Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, with a prayer to transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was performed on 24/2/2008 as per Hindu tradition and caste customs at Chuttugunta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. She gave birth to first son by name Sharat Eswar in the year 2009 and she gave birth to second son by name Sai Aditya in the year 2011. The petitioner was subjected to physical and mental harassment with a demand of additional dowry. The respondent used to suspect her character. When the respondent fell-ill in the year 2009, the petitioner borrowed the amount and took care of him. In the year, 2021 she was necked out. Surprisingly, the respondent filed FCOP No.1211 of 2021 before the Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, seeking to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner lodged a report in Crime No.115 of 2022 under Sec. 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short). She along with her second son filed M.C.No.12 of 2022 against the respondent before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, for maintenance. She also filed HMOP No.42 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner along with her second son is residing at Kondempeta Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District, which is at a distance of 490 kilometers from Vijayawada and it is very difficult for her to travel to Vijayawada. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The respondent got filed a counter raising various contentions and by denying the allegations leveled against him and resisting the prayer. He would contend that the Family Court Act is a beneficial legislation and it is a special Court and the prayer is not acceptable.