POLIPONGU VIJAYA v. POLIPONGU LOKANADHAM
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-07. POLIPONGU VIJAYA v. POLIPONGU LOKANADHAM. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 397 of 2024 Between: Polipongu Vijaya, W/o. Polipongu Lokanadham, Aged about 50 years R/o. D. No. 18-7-20, Aarupamula Road, Khuddus Nagar, Gandhinagar Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh -520003. ... Petitioner AND 1. Polipongu Lokanadham, S/o. Nagaiah, R/o. D. No. 23-1-39/1, Sri Durga Nagar, MR Palli, Opposite ZP High School, Tirupati City District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Ambedkar, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, D. No. 18-7-26, C/o. Vanaja Kumari -House, Khuddur Nagar, Near Baptist Church, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada - 520003. A. P (Respondent No. 2 Not Necessary Party) ... Respondents in the Petition under Section 24 of the C. P. C. Praying that circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the FCOP No.
101 of 2024 on the file of the family Court r Judge at Tirupathi to Family Court Judge Cum V Additional District Vijayawada, Krishna District. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, FCOP No. 101 of 2024 on the file pleased to stay all further proceedings in V Additional District Judge, at Tirupathi to Family of the Family Court Cum Court Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above Tr. C. M. P. : Sri Jada Sravan Kumar Counsel for the Petitioner Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P Jagadish Chandra The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 397 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the F. C. O. P. No.
101 of 2024 on Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; and the The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 29. 06. 1990 and they led a happy marital life for some time. During their In view of wed-lock period, they blessed with two (2) female children. the the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, children at petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her to cause Vijayawada. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that filed unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent No. 1/husband F. C. O. P. Mo. 101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, under Section 13(l)(i) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage. II.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman staying separately along with her children at Vijayawada, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance for more than 400 Kms from VGKK Tr. C. M. P. No. 397 of 202. Vijayawada to Tirupati to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment before the said Court without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking transfer of F. C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. Counter-affidavit has been not filed by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the respondent No. 1/husband herein is a senior citizen aged about 64 years, the petitioner/wife herein deserted the respondent No.
1/husband at about 20 years back and the respondent No. 1/husband herein has been suffering with partial paralysis and he is senior citizen aged about 64 years. He further represented that it is not a fit case to allow the present transfer petition. 7. The Apex Court in a case of Geefa Heera Vs Harish Chander Heera^ held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed. ” (2000) 10 see 304 VGKRJ Tr. C. M. P. No. 397 of 2024 8. The Apex Court in a case of N. C. V. Aishwarya Vs A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: ‘ 9. The Ccirdinal 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. 9. counsel On considering the submissions made by the learned appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid of the wife has to case laws that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife to transfer the F. C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents, since the ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) £127 VGKR, Tr. C;. M. P. No. 397 of 2024 respondent No. 1/husband is a senior citizen aged about 64 years and he has been suffering with partial paralysis, therefore, the personal appearance of the in F C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 respondent No. 1/husband herein i. e. , the petitioner on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, has before the transferee been dispensed with until disposal of the said case Court i. e. , the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”. 10.
In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and Additional F. C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V District Judge, Tirupati, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Judge, shall transmit the case Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, record in F. C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 to the Family Court Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible date of receipt of a copy preferably within a period cf two (02) weeks from the of this order. Furthermore, the persona! attendance of the respondent herein i. e. , the petitioner in F. C. O. P. No. 101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, has been dispensed with until i. e.
, the Family Court-disposal of the said case, before the transferee Court cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, “except on the days when his are directed to appear presence is required as per law”. Both the parties VGKR, J Tr. C. M. P. No. 397 of 2024 before the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, on 06. 02. 2025, at 10. 30 a. m. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents represented that some time limit may be fixed to the learned trial Judge to dispose of the said case, because the respondent No. 1/husband herein is a senior citizen aged about 64 years and he has been suffering with some ailments. 12. Considering the representation made by the learned counsel for the Additional District respondents that, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V of the said case within six Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby instructed to dispose records.
(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the and the Interim As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To SE OFFICER 1. The Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. The Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District. 3. One CC to Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P Jagadish Chandra CD,. - Prasad, Advocate [OPUCl R/o^nT Lokanadham, Aged about 50 years, R/o. D. No. 18-7-20, Aarupamula Road, [, Khuddus Nagar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradeshi-520003. 6. Polipongu Lokanadham, S/o. M Nagaiah, R/o. D. No. 23-1-39/1 Sri Duroa Nagao MR Palli, Opposite 2P High Schooi, Tirupati City Distnct, AndTra 7. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER TRCMP. No. 397 of 2024 g 1 8 JAN 2C23 05 ^ .
Current Section ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.