Allowed

Dr. Megha Aravind Kolkar v. Dr Aravind S/O Pavadabasappa Kolakar

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CP/100150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a matrimonial case from the Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura, to the Family Court, Mudhol under Section 24 CPC, recognizing the petitioner's residence and travel difficulties in Vijayapura as sufficient grounds for transfer to ensure her convenience.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; M.C. No.09/2022 pending at Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura transferred to Family Court, Mudhol.

Dr. Megha Aravind Kolkar Vs Dr Aravind S/O… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO.100150 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. MEGHA W/O ARAVIND KOLKAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: GOVINDARPUR GALLI, MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.ANKIT DEASI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

DR. ARAVIND S/O. PAVADABASAPPA KOLAKAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: HUVINAHIPPARAGI, TQLUK: B. BAGEWADI, DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-583103. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.SIDDHNAGOUDA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO TRANSFERRING M.C. NO.09/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.JUDGE FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPURA TO FAMILY COURT, MUDHOL.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Sri.Ankit Desai., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., for petitioner and Sri.Siddhanagouda Kulkarni., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Santosh B.Malagoudar., for respondent have appeared in person.

¶17

The facts are quite simple and are stated as under:

¶18

It is stated that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 19.12.2016 at Paramanand Mangala Karyalaya, Horagina Gudi, Huvina Hipparagi as per Hindu rites and customs. From wedlock, they have a minor daughter by name Sanvi. They lived blissfully for some time. Due to difference in opinions and misunderstandings, the respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking divorce before the Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura in M.C.No.09/2022.

¶19

Aggrieved by the institution of the petition, the petitioner wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of case in M.C.No.09/2022

¶20

¶21

from the Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura to the Family Court, Mudhol.

¶22

Sri.Ankit Desai., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing in Mudhol, District: Bagalkot and her husband has filed the petition for divorce before the Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura.

¶23

Next, he submitted that the petitioner is not able to go to Vijayapura to attend the case which is quite a distance (80 kilometers) from her place of residence.

¶24

A further submission is made that it would be very difficult and inconvenient for the petitioner to go to Vijayapura as and when the case is posted as the respondent has refused to maintain her and she is not able to meet the travelling expenses.

¶25

It is also submitted that with a great difficulty she is maintaining herself and a minor child.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel vehemently contended that petitioner is a helpless lady and she is not in a position to travel to Vijayapura and contest the case.

¶28

Lastly, he submitted that the grounds urged for transfer may be taken into consideration and the case may be transferred from the Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura to the Family Court, Mudhol.

¶29

Sri.Siddhanagouda Kulkarni., learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to transfer the case. Counsel urged several contentions and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the petition paper with care.

¶31

The short question which would arise for

¶32

consideration is whether the case in M.C.No.09/2022 pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura be transferred to the Family Court, Mudhol?

¶33

¶34

It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.12.2016 at Paramanand Mangala Karyalaya, Horagina Gudi, Huvina Hipparagi as per Hindu rites and customs. From wedlock, they have a minor daughter by name Sanvi. They lived blissfully for some time. Due to difference in opinions and misunderstandings, petitioner was constrained to live apart from her husband - respondent.

¶35

Due to conflicts and misunderstandings, parties have chosen to litigate the issues before the Court of Law. The respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.09/2022 wherein he has sought the aid of the Court seeking divorce. He has chosen the Forum of Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura. But, the wife - petitioner has sought for transfer of the case.

¶36

The question being whether there is some other Forum which is appropriate for the trial of the action, according to petitioner, the Court at Mudhol is the appropriate Forum to

¶37

¶38

litigate the dispute. The grounds taken by wife in the transfer petition are;

¶39

Travel is unsafe being a lady with four year old minor child,

¶40

Expenses required for travel,

¶41

Inconvenience to travel,

¶42

Hence, this petition under Section 24 of CPC.

¶43

In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶44

"24 GENERAL POWER OF TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage, -

¶45

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

¶46

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and

¶47

¶48

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

¶49

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

¶50

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn."

¶51

The section confers a general power to transfer, withdraw and transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage on the application of party. The purpose of Section 24 of CPC is merely to confer discretionary power. A Court acting under Section 24 of CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case.

¶52

It would be relevant to note that the basic principle governing the granting of a petition under Section 24 of CPC is that the petition is not to be dealt with in a light hearted manner and transfer of a case from one Court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason that such transfer of a case from one Judge to another in effect casts a doubt on the integrity, competence, and reputation of the concerned Judge. Unless and

¶53

¶54

until a sufficiently cogent ground is disclosed, transfer should not be allowed as a matter of course.

¶55

For the purpose of such transfer, balance of convenience of the parties should be considered. It is well established that whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is relevant consideration.

¶56

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing in Mudhol. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has also pleaded that she is not able to meet the expenses of traveling to attend the case at Vijayapura.

¶57

As already noted above, whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial matter, the Court must look into the convenience of the wife. She has specifically pleaded that it would be convenient for her to attend the case at Mudhol. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to direct her to attend the proceedings at Vijayapura Court.

¶58

¶59

The law is also well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard in N.C.V.AISHWARYA VS. A.S.SARAVANA

¶60

KARTHIK SHA reported in AIR 2022 SC 4318 .

¶61

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is just and proper to transfer the M.C.No.09/2022 pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura to the Family Court, Mudhol.

¶62

In the result, the Civil Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.

¶63

This Court directs to transfer M.C.No.09/2022 pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura to the Family Court, Mudhol.

¶64

If video conferencing provision is available, the respondent

¶65

is at liberty to appear through video conferencing.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

TKN

Dr. Megha Aravind Kolkar v. Dr Aravind S/O Pavadabasappa Kolakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Megha Aravind Kolkar v. Dr Aravind S/O Pavadabasappa Kolakar

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

Smt.Kasturewwa W/O. Basavanneppa Chandaragi Vs Smt.Balawwa W/O. Basavanneppa Chandaragi

Shekharagouda S/O. Marigouda Patil Vs Deputy Commissioner

Tippayya S/O Fakirayya Dharmoji Vs Shantavva W/O Shivakallappashettanavar

Smt. Jayashri W/O Kadayya Hiremath Vs Kadayya S/O Nagayya Hiremath

Smt. Veena W/O Suguresh Jigalur Vs Shri. Suguresh S/O Sanganbasappa Jigalur

Sri.Kenchappa S/O Narasappa Vs Sri.Ambanna S/O Honnurappa