- (1.)The wife-Rayaprolu Rajya Lakshmi had moved the present transfer C.M.P. under Section 24 of C.P.C. against the husband- Rayaprolu Ravindranadh Sarma praying for the relief of transfer of H.M.O.P. No.264 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram to be tried along with O.P. No.87 of 2002 on its file and to grant such other suitable reliefs.
(2.)The petitioner-wife filed an elaborate affidavit and several of the averments made in the affidavit touch upon the merits of the matter, which need not be gone into at the stage of deciding the transfer C.M.P. The respondent-husband filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations. The wife also filed a reply affidavit explaining certain of the allegations made in the counter- affidavit. Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner-wife had submitted that the power under Section 24 of C.P.C. being very wide, inasmuch as already the O.P. No.87 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the O.P. filed by the respondent-husband i.e., H.M.O.P. No.264 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur may be transferred to the said Court and it will be in the interest of both the parties, if both the _O.Ps, are disposed of by one and the same Court. The counsel also had drawn my attention to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer C.M.P. in general and had pointed out the allegations at para Nos.8 to 10 in particular. The counsel also had submitted that the petitioner is under the protection of her parents and she is not having any property of her own or any other means to sustenance, and hence, she is unable to travel from Veeravasaram to Guntur, which is at a distance of 160 K.Ms. The learned counsel also had pointed out the other allegations relating to the age of her father and the difficulty in taking the witnesses all the way from Veeravasaram to Guntur for giving evidence. The counsel also had drawn my attention to the serious allegations made at para No.8 of the affidavit relating to the threats posed by the husband and Pattabhi and also the other persons whose names had been mentioned, and in view of the said threats, the petitioner is not dare enough to attend the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for the purpose of further prosecuting H.M.O.P. No.264 of 2002 on the file of the said Court.
(3.)Per contra, Sri V. Parabrahma Sastri, learned counsel representing respondent- husband had taken me through the allegations in the counter affidavit in general and also the allegations made at para Nos.6, 7 and also Para Nos.8, 9 in particular and had submitfed that only with a view to create problem to the husband, the wife had chosen a forum at Bhimavaram, which has no jurisdiction at all in view of Sec.19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel also had submitted that the family of the petitioner is a rich family and all the allegations are made only with a view to get the H.M.O.P. transferred to the Court at Bhimavaram. The learned counsel also had pointed out that after the husband had instituted H.M.O.P. No.264 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur praying for the relief of divorce, subsequent thereto, the wife had thought of filling O.P. No.87 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel also had explained that the parents of respondent are suffering from certain diseases and due to their old age, his presence is essential. The learned counsel also had submitted that the family of the petitioner-wife is a powerful family and the people are very aggressive in their place and they had also threatened the respondent with dire consequences if he happens to go over to Bhimavaram.