Dismissed

Smt. Susheela v. Sri. Umesh C.R.

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2013CP/8/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Shimoga to Bangalore under Section 24 of CPC. Court dismissed petition as petitioner could claim travel expenses. Liberty granted to file application for such expenses.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking travelling and incidental expenses for attending court proceedings at Shimoga.

Smt. Susheela Vs Sri. Umesh C.R. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶5

CIVIL PETITION No. 8/2013

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

¶8

Smt. SUSHEELA W/O. UMESH C R AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSE WIFE C/O. G M PRABHAKAR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER TOLL GATE KARI MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, 10^TH CROSS, BEHIND PRASANNA PRAMOD TALIKES 4^TH FLOOR, LEFT SIDE RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 010. … PETITIONER (By Sri. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADV.)

¶9

AND : -------

¶10

Sri. UMESH C R S/O. C K RAMAIAH NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

¶12

OCC. ATTENDER IN MAMCOS APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD SHIMOGA. … RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC WITH A PRAYER TO TRANSFER M.C. No. 73/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND FAMILY COURT AT SHIMOGA TO FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner is the wife of respondent. On account of some differences between the parties they are residing separately. The respondent filed M.C. No. 73/2011 against the petitioner on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Shimoga for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has entered appearance before the Court at Shimoga. The only ground on which the petitioner is seeking transfer of case from Shimoga to Bangalore is that she is staying at Bangalore and she is finding it difficult to go and attend the Court at Shimoga. On the

¶18

¶19

other hand the respondent is working as a Hamali in APMC yard at Shimoga. If the petitioner is having any financial problems to attend the case at Shimoga then she is entitled to claim travelling and incidental expenses from the respondent. This is not a fit case for transfer of the proceedings from Shimoga to Bangalore.

¶20

For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby

¶21

dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking travelling and incidental expenses for attending the Court at Shimoga. If such an application is filed then the Court at Shimoga to consider the same in accordance with law forthwith.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE.

¶23

LRS.

Smt. Susheela v. Sri. Umesh C.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Susheela v. Sri. Umesh C.R.

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 Vijaya Motor Service Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman

Smt Pushpavathi, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

M/S Srushti Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

Jeans Knit Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Medi Assist India Tpa Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Sri Parameshwarappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner