Allowed

Smt. Anitha v. Sri. Babu K Lamani

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CP/342/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings under S. 9 HMA from Gadag to Madhugiri. The court reasoned that the petitioner residing in Madhugiri faced significant hardship and expenditure travelling to Gadag, whereas the respondent could attend proceedings at Madhugiri with less difficulty.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Matrimonial proceedings in MC.No. 20/2021 transferred from I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag to Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri.

Smt. Anitha Vs Sri. Babu K Lamani — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO. 342 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ANITHA W/O BABU LAMANI D/O N. LAKSHMIKANT AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 4^TH CROSS, K.R. EXTENSION MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI – 572132

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. BABU K. LAMANI S/O KASHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT PAPANASHINI THANDA (AT AND POST) KASABA HOBLI, GADAG TALUK GADAG - 582101

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI MR. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF VICIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO (i) WITHDRAW THE M.C. NO.20/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT GADAG AND SAME MAY BE TRANSFER TO BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT AND TO TRY THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶21

This petition is preferred by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings in MC.No.20/2021 pending on the file of the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Gadag to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri, Tumkur District.

¶22

The case of the petitioners is that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 12.11.2017 at Kannika Parameshwari Kalyana Mantapa at Madhugiri Town. Thereafter, petitioner joined the matrimonial house of the respondent at Gadag and the said marriage has been consummated.

¶23

Pursuant to the marriage, certain differences have cropped up between the young couple leading to filing of petition by the petitioner under Section 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No.126/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri.

¶24

Thereafter, respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the petitioner

¶25

¶26

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶27

seeking restitution of conjugal rights in MC No.20/2021 before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag, wherein the petitioner entered appearance and contesting the case.

¶28

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that on 14.08.2021 both the parties entered into a compromise in MC No.126/2020 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri and the same was accepted and the petition came to be dismissed in terms of the joint memo.

¶29

In pursuance to dismissal of MC No.126/2021 the petitioner intended to join the respondent, but the respondent has not accepted her and he has started harassing and torturing her apart from having illicit relationship with other woman. Hence, petitioner though willing to join the respondent has refrained herself in view of the illegal, illicit activities of the respondent. Petitioner further submits that MC No.20/2021 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights before Prl. Family Court, Gadag is still pending adjudication.

¶30

It is the contention of the petitioner that she is residing at Madhugiri, which is at a distance of 350 Kms from

¶31

¶32

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶33

Gadag. She has to travel all the way to attend the said proceedings, more over, that would incur expenditure towards accommodation, stay and food. She further contended that there is threat to her life at the hands of the respondent. Under the circumstances, petitioner filed the instant petition seeking for transfer of the case pending in MC No.20/2021 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gadag to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri, Tumkur District.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent vehemently contends that the petitioner has not bothered to join the respondent pursuant to the joint memo and settlement agreement. Further, she has not bothered to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise. He also contends that the proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri has been dismissed and nothing is pending adjudication before that Court. He further contends that it is very difficult for him to travel to Madhugiri and attend the case. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition filed for transfer of MC No. 20/2021 pending on the file of the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Gadag to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri.

¶35

¶36

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶37

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is residing at Madhugiri, Tumkur District and the distance between Madhugiri to Gadag is about 350 Kms. The respondent is residing at Gadag and has filed a case in MC NO. 20/2021 before the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Gadag under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶38

The petitioner traveling from Madhugiri along with an attendant to Gadag will be very difficult and incur more expenditure, which will have to be paid by the respondent. On the contrary, if the respondent attending the proceedings before the Court at Madhugiri, would be less cumbersome than the petitioner. Hence, I deem it appropriate to grant relief in favour of the petitioner by allowing the instant petition by transferring the case pending in MC No. 20/2021 before the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Gadag to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri.

¶39

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Petition is allowed;

¶42

¶43

CP No. 342 of 2021

¶44

ii) The matrimonial proceedings in MC No. 20/2021 before the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Gadag is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri.

¶45

SdJUDGE

¶46

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt. Anitha v. Sri. Babu K Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anitha v. Sri. Babu K Lamani

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

Smt N Malashree Vs Sri C N Nagaraju

N Vivekaradhya Vs D Ramu

Sri D S Gnana Murthy Vs Sri D a Suryanarayana

Smt K Indumathi Vs Sri J Kashyap

Soumya B H Vs T C Nagaraja

Smt Sushma Mallesh Vs Sri. Ekantheshwara