Allowed

Smt. Pavitra Alias Asha v. Sri Shivakumar

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021CP/130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil petition seeking transfer and withdrawal of matrimonial proceedings from Soraba to Ranebennur. The transfer was based on the petitioner's distance from the court and the need to prioritize the child's educational interests, citing precedent favoring the wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in MC No.25/2020 were ordered withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, with records transmitted forthwith.

Smt. Pavitra Alias Asha Vs Sri Shivakumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

CIVIL PETITION No.130/2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Pavitra Alias Asha W/o Shivakumar Aged about 25 years, Now residing at Asundi Village, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District-581 115.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. M.V. Hiremath, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

Sri. Shivakumar, S/o Shivamurthaiah Aged about 33 years R/o Kavadi Village, Ulavi Hobli, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga District-577 434.

¶12

… Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. D.C. Parameshwaraiah, Advocate - Absent)

¶14

This Civil Petition is filed Under Sec.24 of CPC, 1908, praying to pass an order to transfer MC.No.25/2020 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba

¶15

¶16

to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶17

This Civil Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called out.

¶20

This Court by order dated 10.02.2021 had observed that there was no representation on behalf of the respondent and if the respondent did not put in appearance on the next date, the matter would be proceeded with in his absence. When the matter is called out today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

Taking note of the nature of proceedings, it is noted that no further adjournment could be granted and accordingly, matter is proceed with in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner who is the wife has sought for withdrawal of the proceedings in M.C.No.25/2020 instituted by the respondent – husband on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba and has sought for transfer of the same to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur.

¶24

The facts as made out from the petition are that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a matrimonial relationship on 01.05.2015 and from within the said wedlock they have a daughter who is aged about 5 years at present. It is submitted that differences in the matrimonial relationship have cropped up and that the respondent instituted proceedings in M.C.No.25/2020 seeking for dissolution of matrimonial relationship.

¶25

6. The petitioner submits that travel to attend

¶26

the proceedings would involve travel of about 150

¶27

¶28

Kms from her place of residence and in light of the duty to take care of the educational interest of the child who is aged about 5 years, said travel inconveniences her and has the effect of interfering with fair trail.

¶29

No objections have been filed to the present petition nor is there any representation on behalf of the respondent to controvert the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶30

Taking note of the distance of travel involved in attending legal proceedings and also taking note of the educational interest of the child who is aged about 5 years and also taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha v/s Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR

¶31

5407, convenience of the wife needs to be given precedence.

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C.No.25/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur.

¶34

The records pertaining to M.C.No.25/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba to be transmitted to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur forthwith.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

NS

Smt. Pavitra Alias Asha v. Sri Shivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pavitra Alias Asha v. Sri Shivakumar

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

Havells India Limited Vs M S Marketing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Cosmos Watch Industries Ltd. Vs Nil

M/S Karnataka Financial Services Ltd. Vs Nil

Smt. Monika T N Vs Mr. Jagadisha Vishwanath

Smt. Geetha Ravi Magundanavar Vs Sri Ravi Magundanavar

Smt. N.Prabhavathi Vs Dr.G.Mohan Kumar