Allowed

Sri Balasubramanian v. Smt Chandrika

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2012CP/148/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed civil petitions for withdrawing and transferring matrimonial proceedings from Shimoga to Bangalore. Declaring both parties work in Bangalore, the court ordered joint hearings and granted travel compensation to the wife for attending hearings in Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.17/12 & O.S.No.14/2011 withdrawn from Shimoga to be tried together with M.C.No.1105/2011 at Bangalore; wife entitled to Rs.500 per hearing date for travel.

Sri Balasubramanian Vs Smt Chandrika — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL

C.P.NO.148 OF 2012

C/W

C.P.NO.149 OF 2012

C.P.NO.148/2012

BETWEEN

SRI.BALASUBRAMANIAN S/O SRI.SEETHARAM, 31 YEARS R/A NO.2279, 4^TH CROSS 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 040

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY. SRI.RAJESH S ADV. FOR SRI.HARI KRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)

¶14

AND

¶15

SMT.CHANDRIKA

¶16

W/O SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA 29 YEARS

¶17

RESIDING AT “ASHIRWAD” 6^TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA

¶18

MASTER ROHAN

¶19

S/O MR.BALASUBRAMANIYAM RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER 1^ST RESPONDENT RESIDING AT “ASHIRWAD”, 6^TH CROSS RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA

¶20

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.G.BALAGANGADHAR ADV. FOR R1)

¶23

*****

¶24

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC WITH A PRAYER TO WITHDRAW AND TRANSFER THE O.S.NO.14/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT SHIMOGA TO 5^TH ADDL. FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

C.P.NO.149/2012

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

SRI.BALASUBRAMANIAN S/O SRI.SEETHARAM, 31 YEARS R/A NO.2279, 4^TH CROSS 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 040 …PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI.RAJESH S ADV. FOR HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)

¶29

AND

¶30

SMT.CHANDRIKA W/O SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA, 29 YRS RESIDING AT “ASHIRWAD” 6^TH CROSS RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA. …RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI.G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.)

¶32

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC WITH A PRAYER TO WITHDRAW AND TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.17/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT SHIMOGA TO 5^TH ADDL. FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

THESE C.Ps. ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. The marriage was performed on 11.2.2010. The respondent gave birth to a son Rohan on 3.12.2010. There was a severe difference of opinion between the husband and the wife. The husband files a petition in M.C.No.1105/2011 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The wife initiates two proceedings in M.C.No.17/12 for restitution and O.S.No.14/2011 for maintenance on the file of Family Court at Shimoga. The wife was before this court in C.P.No.78/12 seeking transfer of the petition filed by the husband to Shimoga to be heard along with the proceedings initiated by her. This Court declined to entertain the petition on the ground that the wife was working four days in a week in Bangalore. In these circumstances, the husband has filed this petition for transferring the proceedings from Shimoga to Bangalore.

¶37

¶38

On notice respondent is served and represented by Mr.G.S.Balagangadhar and he has filed objections opposing the petition.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.G.S.Balagangadhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶40

It cannot be disputed at this point of time before me that the wife is working at Bangalore albeit four days in a week. If the proceedings are withdrawn from Shimoga and are directed to be heard along with the petition filed by the petitioner-husband that would meet the ends of justice inasmuch as both the petitioner as well as the respondent are required to travel to Shimoga to attend the proceedings and also to attend the proceedings at Bangalore.

¶41

Mr.G.S.Balagangadhar, learned counsel

¶42

submits that the respondent-wife may be suitably compensated for her travelling. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and since both of them are working at Bangalore the appropriate order would be to

¶43

¶44

withdraw the proceedings from Shimoga and directed to be heard along with the petition filed by the husband. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶45

(i) Both the petitions are allowed.

¶46

(ii) M.C.No.17/12 & O.S.No.14/2011 are withdrawn from the Court of Family Court at Shimoga and directed to be heard along with M.C.No.1105/2011 filed by the petitioner pending on the file of 5^th Additional Family Court at Bangalore and directed to be tried together.

¶47

(iii) The respondent-wife is entitled for a sum of Rs.500/- on every date of hearing when she attends the proceedings.

¶48

(iv) Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶49

(v) The learned Family Judge to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Sri Balasubramanian v. Smt Chandrika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balasubramanian v. Smt Chandrika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri J Venkatachalamaiah Vs the Secretary Karnataka State Transport Authority

G Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri Sadashiva K Amin

Sri B Shashi Kumar S/O Late Bhaskarachar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Sondur Jayappa Vs Smt. Rakshitha Arun Sandur

Smt. T H Manjula @ Lakshimi Vs Sri Raju B