The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Rudra Bindu Sri Naga Lakhshmi Versus Rudra Trinadha Adhi Prasanna Pha Ni Kumar observed and has allowed the transfer of a divorce case filed by husband from a court of one district to a court in another district where there was a separate plea moved for the restitution of conjugal rights between same parties to avoid conflicting decisions.
In the present case, the transfer plea was moved by wife under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code wherein seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by husband before Senior Civil Judge Court, Razole of East Godavri District to Tadepalligudem of West Godavri District on the ground that she is residing at her parent’s house Tadepalligudem which is at a distance of 75 kms from Razole town.
It has also been submitted by the petitioner-wife that she had filed the complaint against the husband and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act in her parental hometown at Tadepalligudem Town Police Station and had also moved the petition for restitution of conjugal rights before Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem.
The court in the case observed that it being evident that the marriage between the petitioner wife and respondent husband solemnized on April 12, 2017 in the function hall at Tadepalligudem.
Thereafter, due to the said disputes the husband had filed a divorce petition on ground of cruelty as stated under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act in court of Razole town and subsequently the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the court in Tadepalligudem town and there also lodged a FIR on her husband and family members for dowry harassment.
The bench headed by Justice Bandaru Syamsunder in the case obserevd and has stated that when the husband filed petition seeking for divorce and the wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights both the petitions have to be disposed of by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik, when two or more proceedings in the case is pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the husband did not deny allegations of the wife as he did not file any counter affidavit. Thus, the court stated that generally, the wife’s convenience is considered in matrimonial proceedings. Accordingly, the court allowed the Transfer civil Miscellaneous Petition.