<p class="title">In a rare order, the Supreme Court entertained a petition filed by a man to transfer the child custody plea of his wife from Andhra Pradesh to a court in Bengaluru.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court stayed the proceedings initiated by the wife against her Bengaluru-based husband for custody of their three-year-old daughter as the man claimed he could not leave the girl child, suffering from kidney ailment, to attend the court proceedings in Andhra Pradesh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari suspended the proceedings in the court of principal district court Ongole, Andhra Pradesh until further orders on a petition filed by advocate Sanjay M Nuli on behalf of the husband.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court issued notice to the wife seeking her response on the transfer petition filed by the husband as he contended the matter should be heard in a Bengaluru court. In matrimonial disputes, it has been seen that transfer petitions are filed by the aggrieved wife for shifting the proceedings from one court to another, particularly to a court in the district where she resides.</p>.<p class="bodytext">But in this case, the husband approached the top court, contending that their daughter was studying in a school in Bengaluru and it would be impossible for him to be travelling to Ongole every week and leave the girl child alone to fend for herself.</p>.<p class="CrossHead">Ex-parte order</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petitioner claimed that his wife, who deserted her, knew very well that he would not be able to pursue the case filed under the Guardians and Wards Act and she would easily be able to obtain an ex-parte order.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The prime concern amongst all the ongoing disputes shall be the well-being of the child and it is important to nurture the child in an environment where she shall be able to grow into a mature and humble human being and it would only cause further disharmony if the present transfer petition is not allowed,” the husband's plea stated.</p>
<p class="title">In a rare order, the Supreme Court entertained a petition filed by a man to transfer the child custody plea of his wife from Andhra Pradesh to a court in Bengaluru.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court stayed the proceedings initiated by the wife against her Bengaluru-based husband for custody of their three-year-old daughter as the man claimed he could not leave the girl child, suffering from kidney ailment, to attend the court proceedings in Andhra Pradesh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari suspended the proceedings in the court of principal district court Ongole, Andhra Pradesh until further orders on a petition filed by advocate Sanjay M Nuli on behalf of the husband.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court issued notice to the wife seeking her response on the transfer petition filed by the husband as he contended the matter should be heard in a Bengaluru court. In matrimonial disputes, it has been seen that transfer petitions are filed by the aggrieved wife for shifting the proceedings from one court to another, particularly to a court in the district where she resides.</p>.<p class="bodytext">But in this case, the husband approached the top court, contending that their daughter was studying in a school in Bengaluru and it would be impossible for him to be travelling to Ongole every week and leave the girl child alone to fend for herself.</p>.<p class="CrossHead">Ex-parte order</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petitioner claimed that his wife, who deserted her, knew very well that he would not be able to pursue the case filed under the Guardians and Wards Act and she would easily be able to obtain an ex-parte order.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The prime concern amongst all the ongoing disputes shall be the well-being of the child and it is important to nurture the child in an environment where she shall be able to grow into a mature and humble human being and it would only cause further disharmony if the present transfer petition is not allowed,” the husband's plea stated.</p>