SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVIversusDR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH

                          [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.

H                                   152
 T.GAYATRI DEVI v. DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH                  153


    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                  A
6721 of 2013.

    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      D
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               E
pending trial in the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court
at Kakinada.

     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 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
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
  clearly is that on the one hand the appellant-wife should live
0
  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.