Dismissed

Smt. Rachana. P. K. v. Sri. S. D. Sainath

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023CP/259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bengaluru dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Hassan. Relying on the husband's severe health conditions and surgery history preventing travel, the court denied the transfer but granted travel expenses for the wife.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer is dismissed. The respondent-husband shall pay Rs.5,000 for the petitioner-wife's travel, accommodation, and food when she visits Bengaluru for proceedings.

Smt. Rachana. P. K. Vs Sri. S. D. Sainath — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO.259 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.RACHANA P.K. W/O.SRI S.D.SAINATH D/O.E.ANANTH KUMAR PETKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1599 2^ND CROSS, SAHYADRI ROAD NORTH LAYOUT HASSAN-573 201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI S.D.SAINATH S/O.S.N.DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 80 DISPENSARY ROAD NARAYANA CHEETY ROAD OPP. TO KEB OFFICE SHIVAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO WITHDRAW MC.NO.2804/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU BY RE-ASSIGNING THE SAME TO THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT HASSAN TO TRY THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings in MC.No.2804/2019 filed by the respondent-husband for divorce pending on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Hassan.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

The marriage of both parties was solemnized on 07.05.2018 at Ganga Bhavan, Ravindranagar, M.G.Road, Hassan in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Admittedly, both the petitioner as well as the respondent had undergone unsuccessful marriage earlier and this is the second time, they have got married. The petitioner-wife is a B.E. Graduate whereas, the respondent-husband is a B.Sc. Graduate. They do not have any issues either from the present marriage or from the previous marriage. Unfortunately, the second marriage of the petitioner and the respondent is also now in the rocks, in view of certain differences of opinion

¶25

¶26

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶27

between them. The respondent being resident of Bengaluru has preferred a divorce petition at Bengaluru, whereas the petitioner, who is the resident of Hassan has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which case, the respondent-husband is contesting the matter and his parents are also parties to the said proceedings.

¶28

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that since the wife is dependent on her parents and she does not have source of income, she is seeking for transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Hassan. Learned counsel contends that the petition preferred by the wife pending before the Court at Hassan is being attended by the respondent-husband and he has been traveling to Hassan to attend the same. Therefore, he would not have any difficulty to attend the matrimonial case, if the same is transferred to Hassan.

¶29

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondenthusband contends that the husband is suffering from various ailments and he has produced certain documents in support of

¶30

¶31

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶32

the same, which are produced at Annexures-R1 and R2. The said documents shows that the respondent-husband has undergone certain hip related operative procedures and he has been advised by the Doctor not to carry much weight and is advised certain restricted movements. Annexure-R2 shows that he has undergone certain styloid fracture. He also contends that the respondent-husband has undergone open heart surgery, which is also admitted and stated in the objections filed by the petitioner-wife that the respondent has undergone open heart surgery, hip joint surgery, fixing the rod to his left hand, wheezing etc. and other major health defects. Therefore, the fact remains that the respondent is suffering from health problems. Under these circumstances, it may not be easy for the respondent-husband to travel from Bengaluru to Hassan, if the matter is transferred to Hassan. Learned counsel fairly submits that he would bear the expenses of the petitioner-wife, if she travels from Hassan to Bengaluru and certain reasonable amount could be fixed for her food, accommodation and travel whenever the matter is posted and when she travels to attend the proceedings before the Family Court at Bengaluru.

¶33

¶34

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶35

Both parties have made efforts to see that if there could be any amicable settlement by way of mediation process, but it appears that the ego of both the parties have thwarted the attempt to resolve the dispute, despite it is being second marriage to both of them. Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no other alternative, dispose of the matter on merits.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for both parties, the point that arises for consideration in the present petition is that, which would be the place for the matrimonial proceedings to go on, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

It is not in dispute that generally, in the matrimonial proceedings, when the transfer is sought for, the convenience and hardship of the wife is looked at, in view of her financial condition, economic condition and inconvenience that would be caused for food, accommodation and travel.

¶38

It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is a B.E.Graduate working as a Senior HR recruiter in a Company namely, M/s.QEOSOL TECH Pvt. Ltd. and is earning handsome salary. The respondent admits that he is a B.Sc. Graduate,

¶39

¶40

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶41

working in a Private Company and earning a salary of around Rs.25,000/-. However, in view of his medical health condition, he is not in a position to travel and it is inconvenient and detrimental to his health concerns. Therefore, it would not be possible for him to travel ‘to and fro’ to attend matrimonial proceedings at Hassan, which is a distance of 200 kms. from Bengaluru.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha vs. Sri Sathya @ Suraj reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5407 , wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that in the normal circumstances, the convenience of the wife will have to be looked into, while considering the transfer petition along with other economic status, social strata and behavioural pattern of both the parties.

¶43

The principles laid down in the said judgment is not disputed by the respondent, but in an extraordinary circumstances of medical reasons and health concerns, the factual situation will have to be seen before passing an order on generalized circumstances.

¶44

¶45

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶46

In the present case, I do not find it convenient or reasonably suitable for the respondent-husband to travel from Bengaluru to Hassan, in view of his present health conditions having undergone heart surgery, hip replacement and fracture, though he may be attending the petition instituted by the wife at Hassan. Of course, the respondent would be at liberty to file an application for his permanent exemption in the said case and prosecute the matter through the other defending respondents therein.

¶47

Be that as it may, the present petition will have to be considered on the facts of this case. Having heard and already discussed above the health conditions of the respondenthusband, I do not find any cogent reason to transfer or accept the reasons for transferring the case from Bengaluru to Hassan, which is initiated by the petitioner herein. In view of the fact that no cogent and effective reasons are made out for transferring this matter from Bengaluru to Hassan and more effective reasons are put-forth by the respondent-husband to continue the matter at Bengaluru on the health grounds putforth and documents placed on record, the present petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶48

¶49

CP No. 259 of 2022

¶50

However, it is made clear that whenever the petitioner travels from Hassan to Bengaluru to attend to the matrimonial proceedings at Bengaluru, the respondent-husband shall pay the costs of travel, accommodation and food at Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand Only) for every such travel. The same shall be paid on her traveling from Hassan to Bengaluru, before the Family Court at Bengaluru.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Smt. Rachana. P. K. v. Sri. S. D. Sainath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rachana. P. K. v. Sri. S. D. Sainath

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

Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka Vs Union of India

Sri. C.Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ashwini Vs Shri. Sanjay M

Sri Shamanth T S Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mrs. Divya Bhandari Vs Mr. Amar. Y

Sri Mohan T Vs Smt Shilpakala B C