Smt. T.Gayatri Devi vs Dr.Tallepaneni Sreekanth
- Neutral2013 INSC 513
- SCR[2013] 8 SCR 152
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an application for transfer of a matrimonial proceeding, where the respondent-husband has instituted divorce proceedings at a place of his choice and the appellant-wife is obliged to defend against them, the court should consider whether compelling the wife to contest the suit at a distant location will materially disrupt her livelihood and professional commitments. A transfer may be warranted where requiring the wife to travel repeatedly between her place of work and the trial court would necessitate frequent leave from employment, thereby jeopardizing her job security and economic self-sufficiency, particularly where she receives no spousal support. The fact that the wife is employed and financially independent does not itself preclude a transfer where the practical burden of distant litigation threatens her ability to maintain her employment and livelihood.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 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 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
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)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free