Allowed

Lilavathi @ Prathibha v. Mohan. N

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2021CP/371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Civil Petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial matter from the Family Court at Bengaluru to the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru. The transfer was permitted due to the petitioner's residence near the latter court and the significant travel distance to the former, which interfered with her ability to defend proceedings effectively.

What did the court decide?

MC No.249/2018 pending in the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru was withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Chikkamagaluru.

Lilavathi @ Prathibha Vs Mohan. N — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 BEFORE

¶3

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

¶4

CIVIL PETITION NO.371/2019

¶5

Between:

¶6

Lilavathi @ Prathibha W/o Mohan N Aged about 41 years R/o Undedasarahalli, Near Coffee quring Godown, Chikkamagaluru, Pin Code – 577101.

¶7

... Petitioner (By Sri.Ravikumar G.H., Advocate) And:

¶8

Mohan N S/o Nagaraju T Aged about 42 years R/at No.260/1, 4^th Main Road, Venkatapura Layout Bengaluru – 560 058. … Respondent (By Sri.Syed Ummer, Advocate)

¶9

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC., praying this Hon’ble Court to issue direction to transfer of

¶10

¶11

petition in M.C.No.249/2018 on the file of II Additional Principle Judge, Family court, at Bengaluru to Family court at Chikkamagaluru for adjudication in the interest of justice and equity.

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

It is noticed that in the order of 06.02.2021, it was clearly observed as follows ;

¶15

“It is noticed that the respondent is not present and that there was no representation on his behalf on 08.01.2020 as well.

¶16

It is made clear that, if there is no representation on behalf of respondent on the next date, the matter would be proceeded with.

¶17

List the matter finally on 17.02.2021.

¶18

Interim order earlier granted is extended till the next date of hearing.”

¶19

When the matter called out once gain today, no

¶20

representation on behalf of the respondent. Taking note of the matter relates to the year 2019, the matter is taken up

¶21

¶22

for consideration despite the absence on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner has sought for withdrawal of the proceedings in M.C No.249/2018 pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru and has sought for transfer of the same to the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru. The petitioner is stated be presently residing at Chikkamagaluru and is stated to be dependent on her parents. It is further submitted that travel from the petitioner’s residence to the Court at Bengaluru to attend and defend the proceedings in MC No.249/2018 involves a travel of about 300 kilometer. It is further submitted that in the light of such travel, it is not practical to attend the proceedings at Bengaluru and return back on the same day, which accordingly would require over night stay at Bengaluru. It is submitted that such travel by herself is not practical and the petitioner would be required to take an attendant with her while travelling to attend the proceedings in MC No.249/2018

¶24

¶25

instituted by the respondent – husband. It is specifically asserted that distance of travel is such that it interferes with her right to prosecute the proceedings in a proper manner. Such assertion of the petitioner that inconvenience has the effect of interference with a right of fair trial remains uncontroverted in absence of any objection filed opposing the present petition.

¶26

Taking note of the inconvenience as pointed above and noticing the distance between the petitioner’s place of residence and the Court being about 300 kilometers, the assertion of the petitioner that such travel has the effect of interfering with fair defence of the proceedings is to be accepted. Inconvenience of the wife also needs to be given precedence in the light of the law laid down in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha v/s Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5407 . In the light of the law governing transfer of proceedings at the instance of the wife as noticed in the above, case is made out to allow the petition.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶29

MC No.249/2018 pending on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru.

¶30

The records pertaining to MC No.249/2018 pending on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to be transmitted to the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru forthwith.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

NBM

Lilavathi @ Prathibha v. Mohan. N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilavathi @ Prathibha v. Mohan. N

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

M/S Si Global Private Limited Vs the Nodal Officer

Shri Narasimhulu Thammineni Vs Union of India

Atria Convergence Technologies Limited Vs Union of India

Smt. Sushma M Vs Sri S.Girish @ Praveen

Smt.Malashree D Vs Sri. Sridhar N M

Smt v R Anitha Vs Ashok Kumar. G