Dismissed

Smt Raksha Rao v. Mr Abhishek M

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023CP/241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka examined a civil petition seeking the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. The petitioner, residing in Canada, argued the transfer was necessary to enable her father, her Power of Attorney holder in India, to attend court instead of traveling to Bengaluru from Mangaluru. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the transfer reque

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Mangaluru was dismissed. Court permitted absentee justice via Video Conferencing.

Smt Raksha Rao Vs Mr Abhishek M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 241 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO.241 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.RAKSHA RAO D/O.CHANDRASHEKAR W/O.MR.ABHISHEK M. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.10-153/12 NEAR MUTHAPPA GUDI OPPOSITE TO CORPORATION BANK SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU-575 016 REPRESENTED BY HER [ NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HER FATHER MR.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.10-153/12 NEAR MUTHAPPA GUDI OPPOSITE TO CORPORATION BANK SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU-575 016

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally (BY SRI RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE) signed by B LAVANYA AND: Location: HIGH MR.ABHISHEK M. COURT OF S/O.MR.B.MANJUNATH KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.1, 1^ST ‘A’ MAIN NEW BEL ROAD OPP. TO RAMAIAH HOSPITAL BALANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 094

¶10

(BY SRI RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.VASANTHA LAKSHMI H V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

CP No. 241 of 2022

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C.NO.1942/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND FAMILY COURT, MANGALURU AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶19

This petition is filed by the wife represented by General Power of Attorney Holder, her father, Mr.Chandrashekar, aged 60 years seeking for transfer of matrimonial proceedings in MC.No.1942/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru North to the Senior Civil Judge, Family Court at Mangaluru.

¶20

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent-husband has filed the matrimonial proceedings at Bengaluru, where he is residing and it is also admitted that Bengaluru was the matrimonial house and pursuant to marriage, they have lived at Bengaluru and due to certain differences and alleged harassment meted out to the petitionerwife, she shifted to her maternal home at Mangaluru.

¶21

¶22

CP No. 241 of 2022

¶23

This being the state of affairs, the respondent-husband filed a matrimonial proceedings against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 24.03.2022. It is his contention that pursuant to her moving out to the maternal home at Mangaluru, the petitioner has left to Canada to pursue her higher studies and she is no more residing in Bengaluru. Hence, she has got appointed her father as a Power of Attorney Holder to defend the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband. Admittedly, the petitioner is not residing in Mangaluru, India, she is residing in Canada and she has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her father, who is a resident of Mangaluru. Under these circumstances, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that traveling from Mangaluru to Bengaluru, which is a distance of 350 kms. is difficult for the petitioner-wife as per the grounds urged and it is also submitted now across the Bar that it would be difficult even to her father, who is the Power of Attorney to travel from Mangaluru, which is also stated in para-12 of the grounds in the petition. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to transfer the matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Mangaluru.

¶24

¶25

CP No. 241 of 2022

¶26

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent contends that he is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and in view of matrimonial house being at Bengaluru, he has preferred the divorce petition as he has made efforts to see that the petitioner joins him, but she did not. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that the petitioner is not presently residing in Mangaluru, India and admittedly, she has moved to Canada to pursue her higher studies which itself proves the fact that her priority is her career more than the marriage. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent contends that if the petitioner has to travel to Mangaluru to attend matrimonial proceedings as sought for, she might as well travel to Bengaluru to attend the proceedings on the day requested by the petitioner at the stage of evidence. For all other proceedings, the Power of Attorney may be permitted to represent. On these circumstances, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having given a careful consideration to the facts put-forth by learned counsel, I do not find any cogent reason put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner to transfer the matter from Bengaluru to

¶28

¶29

CP No. 241 of 2022

¶30

Mangaluru to facilitate the Power of Attorney to attend the Court proceedings at Bengaluru. Under these circumstances, when the petitioner is not residing at Mangaluru, India, she would eventually have to travel from Canada to attend to the proceedings, if at all, she wants to prosecute herself at Mangaluru, which could also be at Bengaluru as there is a direct flight to Bengaluru to attend the matrimonial proceedings.

¶31

In view of the above, I do not find much merits in the petition preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is dismissed .

¶34

However, it is made clear that the Family Court, Bengaluru shall not insist on the presence of the petitioner or the Power of Attorney, unless it is required and if required, it shall provide facility to the petitioner to appear before the Family Court through Video Conferencing.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Smt Raksha Rao v. Mr Abhishek M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raksha Rao v. Mr Abhishek M

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

Sri H Swasthik Rao Vs the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Smt. Mangala Vs Sri. Srinivas

Smt.Pushpalatha N Vs Sri Manikanta S

Smt.Vijayalaxmi Vs Rajasehkar Desai

N Vasu Vs Union of India

Smt Nagarathna Vs S Anil Kumar