# SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI v. DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH

- **Citation:** [2013] 8 S.C.R. 152
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-08-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2013
- **Bench:** Gyan Sudha Misra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/smt-t-gayatri-devi-v-dr-tallepaneni-sreekanth-29122
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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

## Text

A
B ,
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 152
SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI
V.
DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH
(Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2013)
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.
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.
M. Vijaya Bhaskar for the Appellant.
Aniruddha P. Mayee for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
A
B
c
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 appellantwife 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
0 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
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.