Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. T.GAYATRI DEVI versus DR.TALLEPANENI SREEKANTH

Decided
5 August 2013
Judges listed
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 152 · 2013 INSC 513
Also cited as
  • MANU/SC/0857/2013 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 153, margin C

2

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.

p. 153, margin D

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 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.

p. 153, margin E

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 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 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.

pp. 153–154, margin G

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 practical fallout and wisdom.

p. 154, margin E

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 2011 from the Family Court, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Kakinada. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

p. 154, margin F