Allowed

Smt.Shweta W/O. Manjunath Shanubhogar v. Shri.Manjunath S/O. Parasanagouda Shanubhogar

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2019CP/100001/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 24 CPC, the Karnataka High Court allowed the transfer of a matrimonial case from Principal Civil Judge, Saundatti, to the Family Court, Dharwad, citing the petitioner-wife's employment and travel hardship.

What did the court decide?

M.C. No.41/2018 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad.

Smt.Shweta W/O. Manjunath Shanubhogar Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO.100001/2019

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. SHWETA W/O. MANJUNATH SHANUBHOGAR AGE : 25 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR R/O C/O. BASAVARAJ IRAPPA HULKUND, UGARGOL, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST : BELAGAVI. NOW AT MANGALAWAR PETH, MUDIHANAMAPPANA GUDI ONI, DHARWAD.

¶8

….PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAFULLA S. NAIK, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O. PARASANAGOUDA SHANUBHOGAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: UGARGOL, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

..…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)

¶13

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (A) TRANSFER M.C. NO.41/2018 TITLED AS MANJUNATH S/O. PARASANAGOUDA SHANUBHOGAR V/S. SMT. SWETA W/O MANJUNATH SHANUBHOGAR FROM PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) SAUNDATTI TO PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband.

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 24 of C.P.C. (Hereinafter referred to, as ‘CPC’ for short) for withdrawing the M.C.No.41/2018 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Saundatti and transferring the same to the Family Court, Dharwad. The petitioner contended that she

¶19

was married to the respondent on 10.12.2012 when she was studying at 10^th standard and marriage was forcefully solemnized and due to some dispute she was living her parental house at Dharwad and difficult to attend the case at Saundatti. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel objected to the petition on the ground that the respondent-husband filed petition for divorce, but he is ready to take his wife for continuing

¶20

¶21

the matrimonial relationship. However, the wife is

¶22

denying and not ready to come and join with the husband. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶23

Having considering the rival contention and on perusal of the records, though the petition is filed by the respondent-husband for divorce, which was pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti and the petitioner-wife already filed objection before the court below and the matter was referred to Mediation Centre for conciliation was failed. But, the petitioner-

¶24

wife contended that presently she is working as Computer operator at Dharwad, she being a woman unable to attend the case at Saundatti without any assistance. Whereas, the respondent is being land lord and agriculturist can attend the court at Dharwad and no prejudice will cause to the respondenthusband in transferring the case to Dharwad. Considering the background of the arguments

¶25

adduced by the learned counsel for the parties,

¶26

¶27

whether the respondent is ready to take the petitioner and continue the matrimonial life or not all are to be considered by the Family Court on merits. But, looking to the background of the parties, petitioner being woman working as computer operator, it is not possible for her to attend the Court at Saundatti by traveling 35-40 kms and she required some assistance along with her to attend the case which cause inconvenience to her.

¶28

On perusal of the submission of both the parties, the respondent said to be agriculturist and stated as coolie in the petition and therefore, there is no hardship would cause to the respondent-husband to appear before Dharwad Court, if the case is transferred to Principal court, Dharwad. Therefore, in the interest of justice, petition is deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC is hereby allowed and M.C. No.41/2018 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad to try and dispose the case in accordance with law.

¶32

In view of the disposal of the main petition the pending IAs are not survive for consideration and hence disposed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

MNS/

Smt.Shweta W/O. Manjunath Shanubhogar v. Shri.Manjunath S/O. Parasanagouda Shanubhogar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shweta W/O. Manjunath Shanubhogar v. Shri.Manjunath S/O. Parasanagouda Shanubhogar

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

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Ningappa S/O Shiddappa Kuri

Bhimappa S/O Bhimappa Babani Vs Umesh C Maradimath

Miyasab S/O Ibrahimsab Kadiwal Vs Smt.Janatabi W/O Miyasab Kadiwal

Bharati Axa General Insurance Vs Abdul Razak S/O. Honnursab Koppal

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dastagir Bin Khemulsab Bepari

Hajilal@ Ijilal Vs Ilyas Ahmed