Allowed

Pavitra.B.Guggari v. Basavaraj H Guggari

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2020CP/100015/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition under Section 24 CPC for transferring a restitution of conjugal rights case from Family Court, Hubballi to Mundagod, considering the petitioner's residence, minor child, and safety concerns.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of M.C. No. 372/2019 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Mundagod.

Pavitra.B.Guggari Vs Basavaraj H Guggari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

C.P.NO.100015/2020

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT.PAVITRA.B.GUGGARI W/O.BASAVARAJ.H.GUGGARI, AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC : HOUSE WIFE, R/O : CHABBI, TQ : HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT NOW R/O.NINGAPPA.K.SUNAGAR, SANAVALLI, MUNDGOD TALUK-581394, U.K.DISTRICT

¶8

KUM. KUSHI.B.GUGGARI D/O.BASAVARAJ.H.GUGGARI, AGE : 1 YEARS, R/O : NINGAPPA.K.SUNAGAR SANAVALLI, MUNDGOD TALUK-581394 U.K.DISTRICT (REP.BY HER NATURAL GUARDING MOTEHR)

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN P.TARIKAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SHRI.BASAVARAJ H GUGGARI S/O.HANMANATAPPA GUGGARI AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE, R/O : CHABBI, TQ : HUBLI, DHARWAD-01

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.372/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT HUBBALLI TO THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUNDGOD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of M.C.No.372/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, at Mundagod.

¶20

Brief facts, in terms of the pleadings, leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

¶21

The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 21.05.2017. It is contended that, after the marriage the petitioner and respondent were leading happy married life and were also blessed with a daughter. Things began to sore between the petitioner and respondent on account of torture being meted out by the husband to the petitioner-wife. It is further alleged that, respondent has demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and 20 grams of gold to perform his sister marriage and on account of refusal of payment of such

¶22

¶23

amount, the petitioner was further tortured and was forced to leave the matrimonial house and go to her parents house at Mundagod along with her one month daughter. It transpires that the petitioner on returning to her parents house, being unable to maintain herself filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.127/2019 seeking maintenance. It is after receipt of notice in the said petition, the respondenthusband has instituted matrimonial case in M.C.No.372/2019 invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶24

I have heard Sri.Praveen P.Tarikar, learned

¶25

counsel for the petitioners. Respondent though served has remained unrepresented.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit

¶27

that, she was driven out of the matrimonial home and had to come to her parents house, as the respondent began to demand dowry and started beating her and without giving food on the ground that she did not oblige to the demands

¶28

¶29

of the respondent-husband. It is further submitted that she would not be in a position to attend the Court at Hubballi, as she has no independent source of income

¶30

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶31

submissions made by the parties and perused the material on record.

¶32

It is not in dispute that petitioner is presently

¶33

staying at Mundagod along with her child in her parental house and being unable to maintain herself, she has filed Crl.Misc.No.127/2019 seeking maintenance from the hands of the respondent. It is after filing of the afore-stated case for maintenance, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.372/2019 before Principal Judge, Family Court,

¶34

Hubballi for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has a minor child of three months and would contend that it is impossible for her to travel on every date of hearing in the case instituted by the respondent-husband at Hubballi.

¶35

It also the submission that, she has no means of living and

¶36

¶37

would not be in a position to bear the expenses of travel to attend the case at Hubballi. It also the submission that, she would be tortured when she goes to attend the case at Hubballi.

¶38

It is well settled principle of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs.

¶39

Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into

¶40

at the time of considering the transfer application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 . Keeping in view the above said proposition of law and the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the petition is allowed and the said matrimonial case is transferred, it would meet the ends of justice.

¶41

¶42

In the result, the civil petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. I direct the transfer of M.C.No.372/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family

¶43

Court, Hubballi to the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court,

¶44

at Mundagod.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

MBS/-

Pavitra.B.Guggari v. Basavaraj H Guggari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitra.B.Guggari v. Basavaraj H Guggari

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

Vishwanath S/O. Narayanappa Kambar Vs Mahadevappa S/O. Kudleppa Magi

Smt. Kavita Ambiger Vs Shri. K. Ramesh Kumar

Shri.Shivappa S/O Eerappa Meti Vs Sri.Ramesh Shivaputrappa Jamadar

Legal Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Yamanamma W/O. Late Nagappa Kyatapanavar

Smt.Pushpa H.W. W/O C. Kumar Vs C.Kumar S/O Chandrappa

H C Kudlayya Basayya Hiremath Vs Laxman G. S/O G. Iranna