D APPA RAO Vs. D SWARNALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Transfer C.M.Ps. filed by the husband and wife are interconnected and hence are disposed of by a common order. Parties are referred to in this order as they are arrayed in Tr.C.M.P. 108 of 1996 filed by the wife.

(2.) The petitioner who is the wife of the respondent, a leading advocate at Rajahmundry, filed O.P.450/96 on 13-5-96 in Family Court, Hyderabad for declaration of guardianship of 9 years old daughter. Respondent has also filed O.P.208 /96 on the file of the Principal Distict Judge, Rajahmundry on 11-6-1996 for the custody of the daughter. The wife filed the petition seeking transfer of O.P. filed in Rajahmundry Court to the Hyderabad Court while the husband seeks transfer of O.P. from Hyderabad Court to Rajahmundry Court, in his Tr.C.M.P. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition wife states that she came along with minor daughter to Hyderabad on 8-5-1996 and got the daughter admitted in a Hyderabad school and staying with her parents at Hyderabad and that the respondent who is a leading advocate at Rajahmundry is proclaiming that no one can appear against him in Rajahmundry. It is also alleged that she has no security at Rajahmundry and cannot travel from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry along with her daughter. It is also contended that the O.P. filed by her being earlier one the O.P. filed at Rajahmundry may be transferred to Hyderabad Court.

(3.) In the Counter, the husband says that the petitioner along with her daughter came to Hyderabad temporarily for the purpose of training as probationary Dy.Thasildar for a period of 45 days only in the Institute of Administration, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and that the Family Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He also denies the allegation that the daughter was admitted in Hyderabad school. It is also alleged that the wife is now undergoing training at Kakinada as a Probationary Deputy Tahasildar. The allegation that the respondent is proclaiming that nobody can appear against him at Rajahmundry Court is stoutly denied. It is also alleged that it is not in the interests of child to reside with the father of the petitioner who is involved in a number of a A.C.B. cases.