Allowed

Smt Devika Prakruthy a Y v. Sri Mahesh Kumar B a

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023CP/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition filed by a wife under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Bengaluru to Mysuru. Citing Sumita Singh, the court considered the wife's residence, lack of resources, and convenience, granting the transfer subject to her cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Divorce proceedings were withdrawn from the Family Court, Bengaluru, and transferred to the Family Court, Mysuru.

Smt Devika Prakruthy a Y Vs Sri Mahesh Kumar B a — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23839 CP No. 158 of 2022

¶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. 158 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DEVIKA PRAKRUTHY A.Y, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O MAHESH KUMAR B. A, D/O YOGESH A. R, RESIDING AT NO. 1335, SARKAJI STREET, BENKINAVAB ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 021.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. M. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. MAHESH KUMAR B. A, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE ASHOK, RESIDING AT NO. 26, 14TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR. S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC PRAYING I) TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION IN M.C.NO. 3057/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL.

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:23839 CP No. 158 of 2022

¶18

¶19

PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU. II) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned civil petition is filed by the wife, seeking transfer of divorce proceedings initiated by respondent/husband pending in M.C.No.3057/2021 on the file of II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to Family Court, Mysuru.

¶23

The petitioner/wife claims that on account of ill-

¶24

treatment and marital discord with the

¶25

respondent/husband, she was thrown out of her marital home and therefore, under compelling reasons, she had to return to her parental house at Mysuru. The petitioner/wife claims that she is a homemaker and has no financial resources to contest the divorce proceedings

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23839 CP No. 158 of 2022

¶27

pending at Bengaluru. She also pleaded that the distance involved would also deny her a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings. On these set of grounds, transfer is sought.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent/husband, though initially strongly resisted the petition, having argued at length, made a fair statement that in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that the matter required to be transferred to Mysuru, then the petitioner/wife has to be put to terms. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent/husband is paying monthly maintenance and he has to take care of an ailing mother. Therefore, a request is made that in the event the divorce proceedings are transferred to Mysuru, the same may be expedited and decided at the earliest.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23839 CP No. 158 of 2022

¶31

If these significant details are taken into

¶32

consideration, then I am of the view that wife convenience has to be taken into consideration in the light of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 . I deem it fit to transfer the divorce proceedings from Bengaluru to Mysuru. However, this transfer is subject to the petitioner/wife totally cooperating with the proceedings. It is made clear that the petitioner/wife will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will cooperate for the early disposal.

¶33

For the reasons stated supra, the civil petition

¶34

deserves to be allowed to enable the petitioner/wife to have a fair trial. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The civil petition is allowed .

¶37

ii. The divorce proceedings pending in M.C.No.3057/2021 on the file of II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:23839 CP No. 158 of 2022

¶39

¶40

withdrawn and transferred to Family Court,

¶41

Mysuru.

¶42

iii. Since petitioner/wife and

¶43

respondent/husband are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Family Court, Mysuru,

¶44

on 21.08.2023 without expecting any further notice.

¶45

iv. The II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby directed to forthwith remit the records to the Family Court, Mysuru.

¶46

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

hdk

Smt Devika Prakruthy a Y v. Sri Mahesh Kumar B a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Devika Prakruthy a Y v. Sri Mahesh Kumar B a

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

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

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

Santhosh Kumar T N Vs Honarable Vice Chancellor Rguhs