Plea For Divorce And Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Between Same Parties Should Be Decided By One Court To Avoid Conflicting Decisions: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court 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 petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights between same parties to avoid conflicting decisions.The transfer petition was filed by wife under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code 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 parents’ house Tadepalligudem which is at a distance of 75 kms from Razole town. The petitioner-wife submitted that she had also filed the complaint against the husband and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act in her parental hometown at Tadepalligudem Town Police Station and had also filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights before Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem. From the material placed on record, it was evident that the marriage between the petitioner wife and respondent husband solemnized on 12.04.2017 in a function hall at Tadepalligudem. Thereafter, due to disputes the husband had filed a divorce petition on ground of cruelty 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. Justice Bandaru Syamsunder observed 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 NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik (2022): “when two or more proceedings are 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”. In the present case, the husband did not deny allegations of the wife as he did not file any counter affidavit. Moreover, generally wife’s convenience is considered in matrimonial proceedings. As a result, the Transfer civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed. Transfer Civil Misc. Petition No. 434 of 2022Case Title: RUDRA BINDU SRI NAGA LAKSHMI Versus RUDRA TRINADHA ADHI PRASANNA PHANI KUMARClick Here To Read/Download Order

Plea For Divorce And Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Between Same Parties Should Be Decided By One Court To Avoid Conflicting Decisions: AP High Court

Jagriti Sanghi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jagriti Sanghi

Plea For Divorce And Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Between Same Parties Should Be Decided By One Court To Avoid Conflicting Decisions: AP High Court

Jagriti Sanghi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jagriti Sanghi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers