Telangana High Court
Garikapati Laxmi Nandini vs Polavarupu Ravi Teja on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
Between:
Garikapati Laxmi Nandini,
D/o Anjaneya Prasad
... Petitioner
And:
Polavarupu Ravi Teja,
S/o P.Harikumar
...Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 26.03.2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
2
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
% 26.03.2025
Between:
# Garikapati Laxmi Nandini,
D/o Anjaneya Prasad
.....Petitioner
And:
$ Polavarupu Ravi Teja,
S/o P.Harikumar
....Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy,
learned senior counsel
for Ms. Nafisa, learned counsel on record.
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri C.Nageshwara Rao
learned senior counsel
for Sri K.R.Prabhakar,
learned counsel on record.
? Cases Referred:
1. (1981) 4 SCC 517
2. 2022 SCC Online SC 1199
3. (2005) 11 SCC 66
4. 2022 SCC Online SC 1199
5. (2023) SCC Online Bom 1926
6. 2023 SCC Online Bom 1982
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.498 of 2024
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to
transfer FCOP.No.327 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-
cum-VI Additional District Judge, Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally to the Family Court, Khammam.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel
appearing for Ms. Nafisa, learned counsel on record for the
petitioner and Sri C.Nageshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing
for Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel on record for the
respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details,
required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner in
her affidavit filed in support of the TrCMP, averred that she and
respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was
solemnized on 04.05.2023 at Khammam as per Hindu rites and
customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she and respondent left to
Dubai 15.05.2023, where respondent abodes and is working; that
on 20.05.2023, she came back to Hyderabad and later, she has been
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
4
residing at Khammam by performing office duties on ‘Work from
Home’ mode, however, whenever there is necessity, she used to
travel to Hyderabad. It is further averred that she and the
respondent did not reside together at Hyderabad, and in fact, they
spent together only 48 hours in Hyderabad; that in June, 2023, she
stayed for some time at her mother-in-law’s house at Hyderabad to
take care of her mother-in-law when she underwent a surgery. It is
further averred that as differences arose between her and
respondent, the latter filed FCOP.No.327 of 2024 seeking
dissolution of marriage before the Family Court at Prasanth Nagar,
Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
3.1. The petitioner further averred she has been residing with her
parents at Khammam and as she is suffering with motion sickness
and further, given the circumstances of threat to her life, it is
difficult for her to travel all alone the distance of 196 kms from
Khammam to Hyderabad to appear before the Court at Hyderabad
on each and every date of hearing of the FCOP, which will have
effect on her health and therefore, prayed this Court to grant the
relief sought for.
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
5
4. The respondent filed counter through his General Power of
Attorney Holder-his mother inter alia denying the allegations made
by petitioner in the affidavit and averred that respondent and
petitioner lastly resided at Hyderabad and as such, the FCOP was
filed in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. It is
further averred that after marriage, petitioner and respondent stayed
at the house of respondent at Hyderabad for two days and once
respondent left to Dubai, petitioner went back to her apartment at
Gachibowli, Hyderabad; that on repeated requests, in the month of
November, 2023, petitioner went to Dubai, however, returned back
to India, against the wishes of respondent, within a month on the
pretext of getting a job at Hyderabad and thereafter abandoned
respondent.
4.1. It is further averred that respondent is a resident of Dubai
and based on nature of his job, he cannot take leave frequently and
if the FCOP is tried in the Court at Hyderabad, he can directly
travel to Hyderabad from Dubai and can go back to Dubai on the
same day and on the other hand, if the FCOP is transferred to
Khammam, he has to fly to Hyderabad from Dubai and again has
to travel distance of 196 kms from Hyderabad to Khammam to
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
6
attend the Court proceedings. It is also averred that there is a life
threat to respondent at Khammam as petitioner had already warned
him so.
4.2. It is further averred that prior to marriage, petitioner had
been living at Hyderabad and even as of now, petitioner is working
and residing at Hyderabad. Respondent denied that petitioner is
residing with her parents at Khammam and averred that in fact,
petitioner is residing in a rented flat at Hyderabad and created a
ground that she is residing with her parents at Khammam only for
filing the present Tr.C.M.P. By contending thus, respondent prayed
to dismiss the Tr.C.M.P.
5. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter filed by the
respondent, denying the averments made in the counter. She stated
that mere fact of receiving notice at Hyderabad by her does not
form basis to conclude that she is residing at Hyderabad; that she
has chosen a remote job which does not require her physical
presence so as to enable her to work on ‘Work from Home’ mode;
that she does not have any permanent residential address at
Hyderabad and she travels to Hyderabad only when her presence is
required at the Office at Hyderabad and during that time she stays
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
7
at her relatives place, which is the postal address to which notices
were sent to her.
5.1. She specifically denied that there is threat to respondent in
case he travels to Khammam and the same is created only to
circumvent the discomfort that will be caused to him in case of
travel to Khammam and hence, the same cannot be construed as a
valid ground.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
specifically contended the petitioner and respondent did not live
together for any considerable time at Hyderabad except for few
hours or one or two days; that the petitioner continued to stay at
Khammam with her parents, except for travelling to Hyderabad in
case of exigencies in office. Therefore, a casual or place of
temporary stay of petitioner cannot be construed or considered that
both have resided together at Hyderabad and the same does not
constitute ‘residence’ within the meaning of clause-(iii) of Section
19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and further, does not satisfy the
requirement of ‘last resided together’ under the said Act to invoke
the jurisdiction of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukaptally, Hyderabad.
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
8
6.1. Learned senior counsel for petitioner by referring to
Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, contended that that FCOP has
been filed at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, under Section
19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by falsely claiming that the
petitioner and respondent resided together at Hyderabad and in
fact, they never resided together in Hyderabad except for few
hours before the respondent left to Dubai. Therefore, the Court at
Kukatpally, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction to try the FCOP.
7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied
upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeewanti Pandey
Vs. Kishan Chandra Pandey 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had an occasion to examine the aspect of residence under Section
19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is observed as hereunder:-
“In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of
‘residence’ something more than a temporary stay is
required. It must be more or less of a permanent
character, and of such a nature that the Court in which
the respondent is sued, is his natural forum. The word
‘resides’ is by no means free from all ambiguity and is
capable of a variety of meanings according to the
circumstances to which it is made applicable and the
context in which it is found. It is capable of being1
(1981) 4 SCC 517
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
9understood in its ordinary sense of having one’s own
dwelling permanently, as well as in its extended sense.
In its ordinary sense “residence” is more or less of a
permanent character. The expression “resides” means to
make an abode for a considerable time; to dwell
permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled
abode for a time. It is the place where a person has fixed
home or abode. In Webster’s Dictionary, “to reside” has
been defined as meaning “to dwell permanently or for
any length of time”, and words like “dwelling place” or
“abode” are held to be synonymous. Where there is such
fixed home or such abode at one place the person cannot
be said to reside at any other place where he had gone
on a casual or temporary visit, e.g. for health or
business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife
and children, in an established home, his legal and
actual place of residence is the same. If a person has no
established home and is compelled to live in hotels,
boarding houses are houses of others, his actual and
physical habitation is the place where he actually or
personally resides.”
7.1. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana
Karthik Sha 2 and Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Kamal Abrol
2
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
10
and others 3 in support of his contention that the wife’s
convenience must be looked at while considering transfer of case
and prayed to allow this Tr.C.M.P.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent inter
alia opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner, prior
to marriage and even now, is residing at Hyderabad and therefore,
the said ground pleaded by the petitioner for transfer of FCOP is
trivial and futile.
8.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that admittedly,
the petitioner’s office is at Hyderabad and she being a Team
Leader would be frequently travelling to Hyderabad in connection
with her official duties, therefore the averment of the petitioner
that she has motion sickness and as such, her travel from
Khammam to Hyderabad will have effect on her health are all
false. By contending thus, he prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP.
9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the rival
submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for both the
parties. Perused the entire material available on record.
3
(2005) 11 SCC 66
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
11
10. Perusal of record discloses that marriage of the petitioner
and respondent took place at Khammam and both have resided
together at Khammam only for three days and thereafter, both
came down to Hyderabad and resided together at Hyderabad for
couple of days before the respondent left to Dubai, as admitted
by the respondent in the counter. However, the petitioner stated
that they never resided together at Hyderabad and therefore, the
requirement of Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not
satisfied.
11. Further, it is to be noted that the respondent is
represented by his mother as General Power of Attorney, hence,
the contention putforth by the respondent that transfer of FCOP
from Kukatpally to Khammam will cause inconvenience and
hardship to him is untenable. Since the respondent is represented
by GPA holder, except for recording his evidence, his presence
before the Court is not necessary on each and every date of
adjournment of the case.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs.
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 4 held as follows:
4
2022 SCC Online SC 1199
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
12” The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section
24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice
should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other
proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are
called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have
to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the
parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural
pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and
subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties
in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective
umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the
prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society,
generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked
at while considering transfer.”
13. The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya‘s case (3rd cited supra), has been
reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil
Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 5, and
observed as under:-
“In a country like India, important decisions
such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the
guidance and blessings of elders in the family.
For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to
a Court where the fate of her marriage is going
to be decided without any family member would5
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
13definitely be a matter of concern and cause not
only physical inconvenience but also emotional
and psychological inconvenience.”
14. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul
Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil 6 followed the principle laid down
in N.C.V.Aishwarya‘s case (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj
Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil‘s case (4th cited supra),
and held as follows:-
“The underlying principle governing the proceedings
under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of
the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of
the husband.”
15. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in
matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application
for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court,
the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife
over the convenience of the husband.
16. In the case on hand, dehors the rival contentions putforth by
learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties as regards the
aspect of the petitioner and respondent last resided together, in the
6
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.498 of 2024
14
light of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid
judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be
given priority/preference over the convenience of the
respondent/husband, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.327
of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VI Additional
District Judge, Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally is transferred to the Family Court, Khammam, for
disposal in accordance with law.
18. The Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge,
Prashant Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, shall
transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.327of 2024, duly
indexed, to the Family Court, Khammam, preferably within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 26.03.2025
Dr
[ad_1]
Source link