Allowed

Ramya R v. B.v.Deepak

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022CP/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a civil petition filed by a wife under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of a pending maintenance and confinement case from the Family Court in Bangalore to the Principal Senior Civil Court at Udupi due to her residence and financial constraints.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of MC No. 3565 of 2021 from II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi.

Ramya R Vs B.v.Deepak — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 198 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO. 198 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMYA R W/O B V DEEPAK AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A BALEGARABETTU KADLOOR POST KOKKARNE UDUPI TALUK-576234 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

B.V.DEEPAK S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.D5-20 1ST MAIN, B STREET KUVEMPUNAGAR BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560026

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO WITHDRAW THE

¶18

¶19

CP No. 198 of 2022

¶20

M.C.NO. 3565 OF 2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, NORTH BENGALURU, BENGALURU AND TRANSFER THE SAID CASE TO THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Petition is filed by the petitioner-wife under Section-24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of MC No.3565 of 2021 on the file II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the competent Family Court at Udupi.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

parties.

¶26

On careful consideration of the averments made

¶27

in the civil petition would indicate that the respondent herein has filed MC No.3565 of 2021 under Section- 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and it is stated in the petition that the petitioner herein is the resident of

¶28

¶29

CP No. 198 of 2022

¶30

Balegarabettu, Udupi taluk and district and distance between Udupi to Bangalore is more than 400 kms and the petitioner finds financial difficulty to attend the proceedings at Bangalore. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, I am of the view that MC No.3565 of 2021 pending consideration II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, for final disposal. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is allowed .

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Ramya R v. B.v.Deepak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramya R v. B.v.Deepak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Annadanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Hanu Vs the Commissioner

Sri v C Manjunath Vs Mr a S Bangaru Kuldeep

Smt Latha Vs Sri Ravishanakar a L

K H Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Saniya Kounain Vs Salman a