Sandari Vani Vs. Sandari Ravindranath

Sandari Vani vs Sandari Ravindranath

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 18, 1999

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/431377

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/431377
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: A. Hanumanthu, J.
Decided On: Feb 18, 1999
Case Number: CMP No. 172 of 1998
Subject: Family;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Family - transfer of case - Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - husband filing divorce petition at Karmnagar - wife filing application for restitution of conjugal rights at Secunderabad - petition filed by wife for dealing of both cases in Court of Secunderabad - respondent working in Khammam and journey t...

Key legal issue: Family;Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 22 and 24; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 492-A and 500; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 6

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandari Vani

Advocate Mr. D. Goverdhan Chary, Adv.

Respondent

Sandari Ravindranath

Advocate Mr. S.V. Bhat, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 22 and 24; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 492-A and 500; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 6
Reported In: 1999(2)ALD215; 1999(2)ALT179

Excerpt

.....rights at secunderabad - petition filed by wife for dealing of both cases in court of secunderabad - respondent working in khammam and journey to karimnagar is via secunderabad - proceedings should be tried by same court for proper appreciation of facts - balance of convenience in favour of petitioner - held, transfer of case can be allowed for better appreciation of facts. - all india services act, 1951. sections 32(c) (as amended by section 3 of amendment act, 2005] & 10 & general clauses act, 1897, section 6: [g.s. singhvi, cj, dr.g. yethirajulu, ramesh ranganathan, g.bhavani prasad, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] exemption of building from applicability of provisions of act held, (per majority) section 32(c) of the act provides that the provisions of the act shall not apply to any building the rent of which as on the date of the commencement of the a.p. buildings ( lease, rent and eviction) control (amendment) act 2005 exceeds rs.3,500/- per month in the areas covered by the municipal corporations in the state and rs.2,000/- per month in other areas. there is nothing in the provisions of the amendment act which either expressly or by necessary implication suggests that the act is given retrospective operation. section 32 (c) of the amendment act is prospective in operation and this provision does not affect the proceedings pending as on the date of its coming into force before the civil courts or appellate, revisional or executing courts. these cases are required to be decided without reference to and applications of the provisions of the amendment act, 2005. undisputedly when the landlords filed their suits, the rent prescribed in the notification in force for the purpose of exempting buildings was rs.1,000/- and above. the landlords were therefore entitled under common law to approach the civil courts for seeking eviction of their tenants by availing the remedy of civil suits. in the absence of the amended provision being given retrospective operation, the..........the subordinate judge at karimnagar, to the family court, secunderabad.3. heard both sides.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that both the proceedings should be tried by the same court for proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances in these cases and to avoid conflicting judgments. it is further contended that having no means of her own it is difficult for the petitioner-wife to go over to karimnagar and that it is convenient for the respondent-husband who is working in commercial tax department at khammam to go over to secunderabad for the purpose of attending the litigation.5. the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, submits that as the wife and husband lived together for some lime at karimnagar, the sub-court at karimnagar is having jurisdiction and that the children of the petitioner and respondent are residing with the parents of the respondent at karimnagar and, if directed by the court, the respondent-husband is prepared to meet the reasonable expenses of the petitioner-wife to go over to karimnagar for attending the court.6. it is not disputed that the sub-court at karimnagar is also having jurisdiction for entertaining the divorce petition fried by the respondent-husband. the respondent, as arbiter litis, has a 'right to choose his own forum and that right should not be interferred with except on very strong grounds. the court must be satisfied that justice could more likely be done between the parties by refusing to allow a party to continue his suit or proceedings in the forum of his choice. the onus of establishing sufficient cause for the transfer lies heavily on the applicant. preponderance of balance of convenience is of prime consideration for transfer of such a matter. the convenience of the parties is also a valid ground for transferring such a matter. further, the consideration in deciding the matter of transfer of suit or proceedings under section 22 cpc is not that which is a.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. By the present petition, the wife is seeking for transfer of OP No.26 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar, to the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, where her application in OP No.282 of 1997 is pending.

2. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband and got two children out of the wedlock. The wife and husband are living separately due to differences since 1996. The husband filed OP No.26 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and infidelity. The wife filed OP No.282 of 1997 before the Family Court, Secunderabad for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed a private complaint in CC No.191 of 1998 under Sections 492-A, 323, 500 IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad. By the present application, the petitioner is seeking transfer of OP No.26 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar, to the Family Court, Secunderabad.

3. Heard both sides.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife that both the proceedings should be tried by the same Court for proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances in these cases and to avoid conflicting Judgments. It is further contended that having no means of her own it is difficult for the petitioner-wife to go over to Karimnagar and that it is convenient for the respondent-husband who is working in Commercial Tax Department at Khammam to go over to Secunderabad for the purpose of attending the litigation.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, submits that as the wife and husband lived together for some lime at Karimnagar, the sub-Court at Karimnagar is having jurisdiction and that the children of the petitioner and respondent are residing with the parents of the respondent at Karimnagar and, if directed by the Court, the respondent-husband is prepared to meet the reasonable expenses of the petitioner-wife to go over to Karimnagar for attending the Court.

6. It is not disputed that the sub-Court at Karimnagar is also having jurisdiction for entertaining the divorce petition fried by the respondent-husband. The respondent, as arbiter litis, has a 'right to choose his own forum and that right should not be interferred with except on very strong grounds. The Court must be satisfied that justice could more likely be done between the parties by refusing to allow a party to continue his suit or proceedings in the forum of his choice. The onus of establishing sufficient cause for the transfer lies heavily on the applicant. Preponderance of balance of convenience is of prime consideration for transfer of such a matter. The convenience of the parties is also a valid ground for transferring such a matter. Further, the consideration in deciding the matter of transfer of suit or proceedings under Section 22 CPC is not that which is a previously instituted suit but the balance of convenience of the parties and in weighing and examining this course of balance of convenience, the Court would be justified in trying to find out whether a particular party has chosen a forum in utter disregard to the convenience of the other party for some ulterior object and in abuse of his position as an arbiter litis. It is also well settled that having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in the two cases, it is highly expedient that both the cases should be heard by the same Court for proper appreciation and for avoiding conflicting decisions vide Ms. Shaktuntala Modi v. Om Prakash Bharuka, : AIR 1991 SC1104 .

7. In the instant case, both the parties have made number of allegations in their affidavits touching the merits of their cases. I am not concerned with these statements at this stage as the matter has to be examined and decided on merits when these cases are heard in the Court below. In view of the fact that the OP filed by the respondent-husband at Karimnagar relates to the dissolution of marriage and the OP filed by the petitioner-wife in the Family Court, Secunderabad, relates for restitution of conjugal rights between the parties. I am of the view that it is highly expedient that both the cases should be heard by the same Court. In view of this fact, the offer made on behalf of the respondent-husband that he is prepared to meet the expenses of the petitioner-wife in attending the Court at Karimnagar is not of much consequence. Further, there is also much force in the contentition raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife that it is also convenient for the respondent-husband to go over to Secunderabad as he is working at Khammam. Further, if he has to go to Karimnagar he has to pass through ' Secunderabad only.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner-wife. Hence, this petition is allowed. OP No.26 of 1997 pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar is ordered to be transferred to the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, for trying the same along with OP No.282 of 1997 filed by the petitioner-wife. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Further, the trial Judge is directed to dispose of both the matters as early as possible, preferably, within three months from the date of receipt of records in OP No.26 of 1997 on the file of the sub-Court, Karimnagar.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties Sandari Vani vs Sandari Ravindranath Same Subject Family;Civil Same Judge A. Hanumanthu, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 22 and 24; Ind...

Family;Civil