Allowed

Vijayalaxmi W/O. Suresh Umrani v. Suresh S/O. Mahadevappa Umrani

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2018CP/100017/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a maintenance case from the Family Court at Vijayapura to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Banahatti. The court prioritized the wife's convenience and safety due to her lack of income and alleged harassment over the husband's hardship.

What did the court decide?

Transferred M.C.No.86/2017 from Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura to Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti.

Vijayalaxmi W/O. Suresh Umrani Vs Suresh S/O… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO.100017 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

VIJAYALAXMI W/O. SURESH UMRANI, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, RABKAVI, TQ:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.-587101.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PATIL M H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SURESH S/O. MAHADEVAPPA UMRANI AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. MALLAMMA SOLAPUR, GHERAOCHAND NAGAR, AL-AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.-586101

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CIVIL PETITON IS FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING THAT THE M.C.CASE NO.86/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT VIJAYAPURA BE TRANSFERRED TO THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANAHATTI.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-wife has filed the present petition

¶19

under Section 24 of CPC praying this Court to transfer M.C.No.86/2017, pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Banahatti to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though this case is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, same is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 11.07.2008 and thereafter the respondent started ill-treating and harassing her to bring additional dowry and hence, she started living with her parents. It is further submitted

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

that the respondent-husband has filed MC No.86/2007

¶24

in the Family Court, Vijayapura for dissolution of marriage and the petitioner-wife has filed Criminal Misc. No.100/2017 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti Court, claiming maintenance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not having any source of income and the distance between Banahatti to Vijayapura is more than 85 km and it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Vijayapura by traveling the said long distance. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband is a businessman and he is having sufficient income and he can attend the Court at Banahatti. On these grounds, prayed to allow the petition.

¶25

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued and submitted that the brother of the respondent-husband is mentally retarded person and he is to be taken care of by bringing him to the Karnataka Institute of Mental

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

Health, Dharwad, for frequent treatment. It is further submitted that he is also having age old mother, who is also suffering from cancer and further he has to look after his own business. If the said case is transferred from Vijayapur Court to Banahatti Court, he will be put into greater hardship. The petitioner-wife is having sufficient income. She is also running a beauty parlour and only with an intention to harass him, after he filing a divorce petition, she has filed a criminal miscellaneous seeking maintenance. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶28

I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and I have perused the records.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner-wife that the respondent-husband has filed MC No.86/2017 for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending in

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

Principal Judge, Family Court at Vijayapura and she is not having any source of income and she is also having a life threat and it is very difficult for her to travel 80 km on each date of hearing and if the said case is kept pending there, she will be put to a greater hardship.

¶32

Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband that he has to look after his mentally retarded brother and age old mother along with his business, it is well settled principles of law that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into while considering the transfer petition filed under Section 24 of CPC.

¶33

This principle of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita

¶34

Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , holding that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into at the time of considering the transfer application filed under Section 24 of CPC,

¶35

: 6 :

¶36

which is also relied upon by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suhashini vs. S.B.Mahendra Kumar reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2804 .

¶37

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and M.C.No.86/2017 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura is hereby withdrawn and made over to the Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶38

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti, without further notice, on 17.12.2018.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

yan

Vijayalaxmi W/O. Suresh Umrani v. Suresh S/O. Mahadevappa Umrani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalaxmi W/O. Suresh Umrani v. Suresh S/O. Mahadevappa Umrani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Channabasanagouda S/O. Hanamantagouda Kalwad Vs Yallappa Mahadevappa Kariyannavar

Vasant S/O. Laxmansing Killedar Vs Bankatlal S/O. Krishanlal Upadhyaya

Smt. Mallawwa W/O Hanamant Manigar Vs Smt. Gangawwa W/O Paramanand Kabbur

Smt. Venkatamala @ Nirmala Vs Maruti S/O Siddappa Channadasar

Mohammed Meer Fatah Ali S/O Dr.Mohammed Satar Ali Vs Shahedakhanam W/O Mohammed Meer Fatah Ali

Basavaraj S/O Ayyappa Nagoji Vs Chandrika W/O Basavaraj Nagoji