Allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021CP/194/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a civil petition under Section 24 of CPC for transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Mysuru. The court held that the wife's residence, ill health, and travel inconvenience warranted the transfer in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in M.C.No.5274/2019 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru were ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the I Additional Family Court at Mysuru.

Smt. N.Prabhavathi Vs Dr.G.Mohan Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL PETITION No.194/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. N. Prabhavathi, W/o Dr. G. Mohan Kumar, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.303, 10^th Cross, 2^nd Stage, Madhuvana Layout, Srirampura, Mysore - 570 023. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Smt. Lakshmi Devi K., Advocate for Sri Prasanna V.R., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Dr. G. Mohan Kumar, S/o H. Gangadharaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Doctor, R/at No.3, 4^th Floor, 7^th Cross, Jyothi Nagara, Chandra Layout, Bangaluru - 560 040. … Respondent (By Sri K. Prakash, Advocate - Absent)

¶12

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to pass an order for withdrawing the M.C. No.5274/2019 pending on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and transfer the same to the Court of the District Judge, I Addl. Prl. Family Court, Mysuru, where the Crl. Misc. No.20/2020 is pending, by allowing this petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

respondent.

¶17

It is further noticed that there is no Vakalath filed till date to represent the respondent. It is further submitted

¶18

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel who undertook to represent the respondent is the same counsel who had appeared on behalf of the respondent

¶19

before the trial court. However, till date, neither Vakalath has been filed, nor has there been any representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶20

It is also to be noticed that the counsel for the respondent before the trial court has also been notified of

¶21

the present proceedings and the learned counsel for petitioner has filed the copy of said intimation made out to

¶22

the learned counsel for the respondent who is on record. In light of no steps having been taken by the respondent for

¶23

¶24

representation and undertaking to file vakalath not having been adhered to, the matter is proceeded with.

¶25

The petitioner who is the wife has filed the present

¶26

petition seeking for withdrawal of the proceedings in M.C.No.5274/2019 instituted by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of the marriage, which is pending before

¶27

the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru and has sought for transfer of the said proceedings to the I Additional Family Court at Mysuru.

¶28

The petitioner submits that she is presently residing at Mysuru and the respondent had instituted the proceedings before the Family Court at Bengaluru and traveling from Bengaluru to Mysuru to attend the proceedings would involve travel of about 130 Kms. The petitioner submits that she is under medication and in light of her ill health, she finds it difficult to travel alone and such inconvenience interferes with the right of fair trial.

¶29

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶31

It is noticed that there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶32

Noticing that the respondent has remained

¶33

unrepresented and has failed to come before the Court to rebut the contentions putforth by the petitioner and also taking note of the inconvenience to the wife while noticing the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5407 , wherein this Court after appreciating the law on the point has stated that the wife’s convenience would be a relevant factor to be taken note of while considering the transfer petitions, a case is made out for allowing this petition.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

¶35

proceedings in M.C.No.5274/2019 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is to be withdrawn and transferred to the I Additional Family Court at Mysuru.

¶36

¶37

The records pertaining to M.C.No.5274/2019

¶38

pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to be transmitted to the I Additional Family Court at Mysuru.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Np/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Pavitra Alias Asha Vs Sri Shivakumar