Allowed

Smt Kavita @ Latha W/O T. Virupaksha Reddi v. T. Virupaksha Reddi

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CP/100037/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC. Considering the petitioner’s financial inability to travel and the respondent’s neglect, the court transferred the divorce case to the Family Court at Gadag.

What did the court decide?

The divorce proceeding M.C. No. 23/2017 is transferred to the Family Court, Gadag, for disposal in accordance with law.

Smt Kavita @ Latha W/O T. Virupaksha Reddi Vs T… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶6

CIVIL PETITION NO.100037/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. KAVITA @ LATHA W/O T. VIRUPAKSHA REDDI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, D/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA DODDA HANUMANGOUDRA, R/O: KAPPALI, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

T. VIRUPAKSHA REDDI S/O. T. ADIVEPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GADDIKERI VILLAGE, IN H B HALLI TALUK, DIST: BALLARI. (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C NO. 23/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TO FAMILY COURT, GADAG.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-

¶20

wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying this Court to transfer M.C.No.23/2017 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli to the Family Court, Gadag.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent remained absent.

¶23

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner-wife that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent on 26.04.2015. Thereafter the petitioner-wife lived with him only for a period of one year. It is further contended that thereafter the respondent-husband started ill-treating and harassing the petitioner and started blaming her that she is of a different nature woman and she has not at all adjusted to him and

¶25

¶26

his family members; he has no physical relationship with her and since 1½ years both are living separately. Now the petitioner is residing at Kappali, Dist.Gadag along with her parents. It is further submitted that the respondenthusband has filed a petition for divorce in M.C.No.23/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, which is at a distance of 150 kms. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not having any financial source and it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Hagaribommanahalli. On these grounds, he tried to allow the petition.

¶27

4. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

¶28

the contents of the petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶29

It is the specific contention of the petitionerwife that the respondent–husband has filed M.C.No.23/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli for divorce. The distance between Hagaribommanahalli and Kappali, where the petitioner-

¶30

¶31

wife is residing, is 150 kms. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she is not having any source of income and she is residing with her parents, who are also not in a position to meet out the travel expenses. There is force in the said submission.

¶32

It is well established principal of law that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into while considering the application for transfer of the matrimonial case. This preposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs.

¶33

Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in AIR 2002 SC

¶34

396.

¶35

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that transfer of M.C.No.23/2017 to the Family Court, Gadag, would meet the ends of justice. Hence I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

¶39

M.C.No.23/2017 pending on the file of Judge, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli is withdrawn and the same is transferred to the Family Court, Gadag for disposal in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

gab

Smt Kavita @ Latha W/O T. Virupaksha Reddi v. T. Virupaksha Reddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kavita @ Latha W/O T. Virupaksha Reddi v. T. Virupaksha Reddi

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

Shri.Shrishail S/O Shivamurtayya Dhupadalmath Vs Shri.Mahaning S/O Appanna Bangennavar

Ashwini Trading Company Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Go World Office Vs the University of Agricultural Sciences

Shri. Rajesh Vs Smt. Sneha

The Managing Director Vs Kiran Kumar H.B

Manjunath S/O Halappa Medleri Vs C.G. Hemavathi W/O H.C. Shivapa Nayakaja