SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI v. DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Gyan Sudha Misra
Pinaki Chandrase Ghose
Judgment Date: 2013-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the transfer of the divorce proceeding and its records (O.P. 1256/2011) from the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Kakinada is permitted.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SMT. T. Gayatri Devi

Respondents

Dr. Tallapaneni Sreekanth

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Vijaya Bhaskar

Counsels for Respondents

• Aniruddha P. Mayee

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal concerns a transfer petition filed by the appellant-wife, SMT. T. Gayatri Devi, seeking transfer of a divorce proceeding (O.P. No. 1256/2011) from the Family Court at Hyderabad to the Family Court at Kakinada. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had, on 23.07.2012, dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant is not indigent and can contest the suit by travelling from Kakinada to Hyderabad; the High Court thus refused transfer on financial grounds. The appellant argued that forcing her to contest in Hyderabad would unjustly burden her, given that she is employed as a Company Secretary in Kakinada and would have to travel long distances, take leave, and risk impairing her professional duties. The respondent-husband, on the other hand, sought to have the case tried at Hyderabad, the place chosen by him, claiming the appellant’s non-indigent status justified lack of transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was unsustainable and failed to appreciate the practical fallout on the appellant’s employment and livelihood; it emphasized that fairness requires considering the wife’s ability to contest without sacrificing her job. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal, and transferred the divorce proceedings and records to the Family Court at Kakinada (O.P. 1256/2011).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-wife sought transfer of OP 1256/2011 from Hyderabad to Kakinada, arguing that continuing in Hyderabad would cause her to neglect her professional duties and that the husband cannot unilaterally choose a trial location to suit his convenience; she asserts that the travel burden and leave demands would affect her job as a Company Secretary and her livelihood, and that she should be allowed to contest the divorce in a location closer to her work and home.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-husband contends that the appellant is not indigent and can bear travel to Hyderabad; the High Court correctly held that transfer was not warranted on this ground; the case should be tried at Hyderabad as a location convenient to the petitioning spouse.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 152 A ## SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI _V._ DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH (Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2013) B , ## AUGUST 5, 2013 **[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]** - - _Transfer Petition Petition of appellant-wife for transfer_ - C _of divorce proceeding instituted by respondent-husband pending trial in Family Court, Hyderabad to Family Court at_ - - - - _Kakinada Rejected by High Court Propriety Held: Not_ - - _proper Approach of the High Court and the reasons assigned_ - - _by it clearly unsustainable High Court lost sight of the fact_ - D _that respondent-husband on the one hand has filed_ a _divorce proceeding against appellant-wife and further expects the same to be tried at_ a _place of his choice, which is Hyderabad_ - _High Court refused to transfer it to the place where the wife_ - _is working on the ground that she is not an indigent lady and_ - E _is capable of contesting the suit by undertaking journey from_ - - _Kakinada to Hyderabad It completely overlooked the implication of this view as on the one hand the appellant-wife would be expected to contest the divorce proceeding to her detriment and at the same time would have to undertake the_ - F _journey from Kakinada to Hyderabad which is bound to affect discharge of her professional duties where she is working as apart from the journey she would also have to seek leave which surely would affect her work performance further and put_ - - _her job at risk Considering the implication of the aforesaid situation and circumstance, the view taken by the High Court_ - G _refusing to transfer the case is fit to be struck down as illegal,_ - - _devoid of practical fallout and wisdom Divorce proceeding along with its records permitted to be transferred from the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Kakinada._ 152 H T.GAYATRI DEVI _v._ DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH 153 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2013. A From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2012 of the High Court of Judicature A.P. at Hyderabad in Transfer Civil Misc. Petition No. 89 of 2012. B M. Vijaya Bhaskar for the Appellant. Aniruddha P. Mayee for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered c ## **ORDER** ## 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 23.07.2012 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the petition filed by the appellant for transfer of a divorce proceeding instituted by the respondent-husband bearing O.P. No. 1256/2011 which is pending trial in the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court at Kakinada. E 3. The High Court appears to have rejected the petition essentially on the ground that the appellant-wife is not a student depending upon her parents and is stated to be employed in F a private sector as Company Secretary and, therefore, the High Court held that it was not a case of a destitute woman depending on the charity of her parents and taking shelter in her parental house so as to allow the transfer of the divorce proceeding on the ground that she could not afford the G expenditure of travel and accommodation at Hyderabad. 4. We find the approach of the High Court and the reasons assigned clearly unsustainable as the High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that the respondent-husband on the H 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 8 S.C.R. A one hand has filed a divorce proceeding against the appellantwife and further expects the same to be tried at a place of his choice, which is Hyderabad. The High Court refused to transfer it to the place where the wife is working on the ground that the petitioner-wife is not an indigent lady and she is capable of B contesting the suit by undertaking journey from Kakinada to Hyderabad. The learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the implication of this view as on the one hand the appellant-wife would be expected to contest the divorce proceeding to her detriment and at the same time would have c to undertake the journey from Kakinada to Hyderabad which is bound to affect discharge of her professional duties where she is working as apart from the journey she would also have to seek leave which surely would affect her performance in the company further and put her job at risk. The import of the order 0[clearly is that ][on ][the one hand the appellant-wife should live ] alone, maintain herself by living at her parents place and on the top of it give more attention to contest the divorce proceeding rather than looking to her job on which she is surviving in absence of any support from her husband who not only seeks E a decree of divorce but also at convenience by choosing a place of his choice to secure a decree of divorce. 5. Considering the implication of the aforesaid situation and circumstance, the view taken by the High Court refusing to transfer the case is fit to be struck down as illegal, devoid of F practical fallout and wisdom. 6. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court, allow this appeal and permit the transfer of the divorce proceeding along with its records bearing O.P. No. 1256 of G 2011 from the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Kakinada. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.