SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI Vs DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH
Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Case number: C.A. No.-006721-006721 / 2013
Diary number: 28556 / 2012
Advocates: M. VIJAYA BHASKAR Vs
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6721 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28462/2012)
SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
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.
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 a private sector as
Company Secretary and, therefore, the High Court held
that it was not a case of a destitute woman depending
Page 2
2
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 expenditure of travel and accommodation at
Hyderabad.
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 one hand has filed a divorce
proceeding against the appellant-wife 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 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 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
Page 3
3
order 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 a decree of divorce but also at convenience by
choosing a place of his choice to secure a decree of
divorce.
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 practical fallout
and wisdom.
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 2011 from the Family
Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Kakinada.
........................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI AUGUST 05, 2013
Page 4
4
Page 5
5
ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28462/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2012 in CMP No.89/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD)
SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 05/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Vijaya Bhaskar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the reportable signed order.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (S.S.R. KRISHNA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Reportable signed order is placed on the file)