Allowed

Smt. Lavanya U T v. Sri. Govindaraju T v

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CP/95/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of dissolution proceedings from Bengaluru to Tumakuru due to her residence and childcare responsibilities. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on the principle of wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of proceedings M.C.No.43/2020 from Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District to Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru.

Smt. Lavanya U T Vs Sri. Govindaraju T v — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL PETITION No.95/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt.Lavanya U.T., W/o Govindaraju T.V. @ Chidambara Aged 23 years Resident of Shettarapalya Urdigere Hobli, Urdigere Post Tumkuru Tq & Dist.572140. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri Govindaraju T.V., @ Chidambara S/o Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamaiah Aged 30 years R/o Kodagi Thirumalapura T.B.Post, Hesaraghatta Hobli Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru 560089. … Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Sudharsan Suresh, Advocate)

¶13

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to order for transfer of M.C.No.43/2020 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru for disposal in accordance with law and etc.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

There is no representation for the respondent when

¶18

the matter is called out. This Court, by order dated 19.03.2021 had observed as follows:-

¶19

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

¶20

It is made clear that, if the respondent does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter would be proceeded with in his absence. As the matter pertains to the year 2020, no further adjournment would be granted.

¶21

List the matter finally on 26.03.2021.

¶22

The interim order earlier granted is extended till the next date of hearing."

¶23

Accordingly, the matter is proceeded with in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶24

The petitioner-wife has filed the present petition

¶25

and has sought for withdrawal of the proceedings in M.C.No.43/2020 pending before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru filed by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of

¶26

¶27

matrimonial relationship and has sought for transfer of the same to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru.

¶28

The petitioner submits that she is currently residing in a Village at Tumakuru District and travel to Bengaluru to defend the proceedings instituted by the respondent - husband inconveniences her.

¶29

It is further submitted that the petitioner and the respondent have a child born from within the wedlock who is aged 4½ years and the educational interests of the child would be jeopardized if the petitioner were to take the child alongwith her, as there are difficulties in leaving the child alone when she travels to attend the proceedings at Bengaluru.

¶30

It is further submitted that the respondent had also entered appearance in the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.14/2020 pending before the Court at Tumakuru.

¶31

¶32

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶33

The assertion of the petitioner that travel

¶34

involved in attending the legal proceedings before the Court at Bengaluru inconveniences her so as to prejudice her right for fair trial deserves acceptance, in light of the petitioner having a child from within a wedlock, who is aged about 4½ years.

¶35

The assertions and inconveniences of the

¶36

petitioner remain un-rebutted.

¶37

Taking note of the law laid down in the case of

¶38

Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5407 , the convenience of wife is to be given precedence in transfer petitions. Accordingly, a case is made out for allowing the petition.

¶39

As held by this Court in the case of

¶40

Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5407 , it is the convenience of wife which has to

¶41

¶42

be given precedence while considering the transfer

¶43

petitions.

¶44

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

¶45

proceedings in M.C.No.43/2020 pending before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is withdrawn and the same is transferred to Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru.

¶46

The records pertaining to M.C.No.43/2020 pending before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru be transmitted to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru forthwith.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

VGR

Smt. Lavanya U T v. Sri. Govindaraju T v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lavanya U T v. Sri. Govindaraju T v

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

Official Liquidator of Vs Nil

Faizal Edavalath Kottikollon Vs the Official Liquidator

Sri. H Sajjad Wahab Vs Kkmi Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.Dhananjaya.D Vs Smt.Shruthi

Mahesh. M. C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Pramod Kumar N Vs Mrs Ananya M v