Allowed

Smt.Nikhita Pai B v. Sri.Raviteja Kamath B K

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023CP/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil petition seeking transfer of restitution proceedings from Family Court, Bengaluru, to Senior Civil Judge, Bantwal. The court clubbed the restitution petition with the pending divorce petition to prevent conflicting judgments and prioritized the wife's convenience per Apex Court guidelines, directing remission of records.

What did the court decide?

Civil petition allowed; divorce proceedings transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Bantwal; records remitted; expedited disposal directed.

Smt.Nikhita Pai B Vs Sri.Raviteja Kamath B K — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23837 CP No. 10 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL PETITION NO. 10 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NIKHITA PAI B, D/O B. SRINIVAS PAI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4-149, COLLEGE ROAD, BANTWAL KASBA BANTWAL - 574 211, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR COUNCIL FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. RAVITEJA KAMATH B. K, S/O KESHAVA KAMATH B, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.204, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK-2 RANKA PARK APARTMENTS, 4, 5, 6, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

PRESENTLY WORKING AT M/S. NETSKOPE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, IST FLOOR, SATTVA KNOWLEDGE COURT, 20, 21, 7TH CROSS ROAD,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:23837 CP No. 10 of 2023

¶17

GREEN DOMAIN LAYOUT, EPIP ZONE, BANGALORE - 560 048.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. AYANTIKA MONDAL, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE M.C.NO. 6793/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU AND THE SAME WAY BE ORDERED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA ON SUCH TERMS AND CONITIONS FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WITH LAW, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned civil petition is filed by the wife, seeking transfer of restitution proceedings initiated by respondent/husband pending in M.C.No.6793/2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to Senior Civil Judge, Bantawal, Dakshina Kannada.

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:23837 CP No. 10 of 2023

¶25

¶26

The respondent/husband is seeking restitution of conjugal rights and has filed a petition at Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner/wife is seeking divorce and filed a petition in M.C.No.10/2023, which is pending for consideration on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada.

¶27

The respondent/husband, though has engaged

¶28

a lawyer, counsel on record was found to be absent on two

¶29

previous dates. This matter was adjourned on two occasions to offer an opportunity to the

¶30

respondent/husband to contest the proceedings.

¶31

On examining the records, I am of the view that since respondent/husband and petitioner/wife have initiated independent proceedings, one being for divorce and the other being for restitution, both proceedings cannot be proceeded with at two different courts, which may lead to conflicting judgments. If the respondent/husband is genuinely interested in reviving the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:23837 CP No. 10 of 2023

¶34

marital life and is able to demonstrate his bonafides, no prejudice will be caused if the restitution petition is withdrawn from Family Court, Bengaluru and transferred to Bantwal. Since there is no serious contest, I am of the view that restitution proceedings pending at Family Court cannot be independently proceeded with. This petition needs to be clubbed with the divorce petition and both are to be heard and decided by the same Court.

¶35

If these significant details are taken into consideration, then I am of the view that wife's convenience has to be taken into consideration in the light of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶36

Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 .

¶37

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass

¶38

the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The civil petition is allowed .

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:23837 CP No. 10 of 2023

¶43

ii. The divorce proceedings pending in M.C.No.6793/2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is withdrawn and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Bantawal, Dakshina Kannada.

¶44

iii. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby directed to forthwith remit the records to the Senior Civil Judge, Bantawal, Dakshina Kannada.

¶45

iv. The Senior Civil Judge, Bantawal, Dakshina Kannada shall expedite the matter and dispose both the petitions at the earliest.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

HDK CT: BHK

Smt.Nikhita Pai B v. Sri.Raviteja Kamath B K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Nikhita Pai B v. Sri.Raviteja Kamath B K

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. Pramila Vs Deputy Commissioner

Rajanna S/O Late Munishamappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri. S.S.Puttaraju

Sri P Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Vittalamurthy S/O G Hanumanthaiah @ Nagaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Santhosh Kumar T N Vs Honarable Vice Chancellor Rguhs

Smt Devika Prakruthy a Y Vs Sri Mahesh Kumar B a