Partly allowed

Smt S Shobha v. Sri M Ganesh Murthy

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023CP/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of two confounding civil petitions under Section 24 CPC seeking to transfer matrimonial proceedings. While dismissing the husband's petition, the court allowed the wife's petition and ordered the transfer of the transfer of the husband's proceedings to the court where the wife's case is pending.

What did the court decide?

Allowed petition CP No. 39 of 2022; Dismissed petition CP No. 106 of 2022; Transferred MC No. 6659/2021 to Senior Civil Judge, Kollegal to be tried with MC No. 7/2022.

Smt S Shobha Vs Sri M Ganesh Murthy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CIVIL PETITION NO. 39 OF 2022 C/W CIVIL PETITION NO. 106 OF 2022

¶7

IN CP.NO.39 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.S.SHOBHA W/O.M.GANESH MURTHY D/O.SUNIL M. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT KUMARA KRUPA NILAYA BASTIPURA ROAD OPP. TO ANANDA TELECOMMUNICATION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B SRI M.GANESH MURTHY LAVANYA S/O.M.MAHADEVAIAH Location: AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HIGH R/AT NO.38 COURT OF SRI MANJUNATH NILAYA KARNATAKA 8^TH CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR MOODALAPALYA VTC NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY MS.RAKSHA KEERTHANA K. FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶16

¶17

CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶18

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C.NO.6659/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING BEFORE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE FAMILY COURT AT KOLLEGALA I.E., COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA AND ETC.

¶19

IN CP.NO.106 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

¶20

SRI M.GANESH MURTHY S/O.M.MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.38 SRI MANJUNATH NILAYA 8^TH CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR MOODALAPALYA VTC NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072

¶21

…PETITIONER

¶22

(BY MS.RAKSHA KEERTHANA K. FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶23

AND :

¶24

SMT.S.SHOBHA W/O.M.GANESH MURTHY D/O.SUNIL M. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT KUMARA KRUPA NILAYA BASTIPURA ROAD OPP. TO ANANDA TELECOMMUNICATION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶27

¶28

CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶29

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER MC.NO.07/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLLEGALA TO THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶30

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

These petitions are filed by the wife and husband respectively, seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings preferred by both of them in MC.No.6659/2021 filed by the husband pending on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala and in MC.No.7/2022 filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kollegala to the Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru.

¶33

Learned counsel for wife contends that it would be difficult for her to travel from Kollegala to Bengaluru, as she is not an earning member and she is residing with her parents in the maternal home. It is contended that the distance between Kollegala and Bengaluru is 150 kms. and since she is unemployed, it would be difficult for her to bear the expenses of ‘to and fro’ and also the food and accommodation. She

¶34

¶35

CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶36

further contends that she has already preferred a petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶37

Per contra , learned counsel for husband vehemently contends that there is a lot of harassment by the wife to the husband and in view of there being threat to his life, it is not possible for him to travel as it is harmful to his life. She further contends that the husband is working as an Assistant Manager in the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and since he is holding a key position, it would be difficult for him to travel on every date of hearing to attend the proceedings at Kollegal. On these grounds, she seeks to transfer the matter from Kollegala to Bengaluru and that the respondent would bear expenses of travel of the wife including food, accommodation and travel expenses from Kollegala to Bengaluru. However, according to the husband, the distance between Bengaluru and Kollegala is 300 kms. whereas learned counsel for the wife submits that it is around 150 kms.

¶38

While considering the transfer petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, what has to be seen is the inconvenience

¶39

¶40

CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶41

and hardship that would be caused to either of the parties and whether the same can be compensated by way of cost.

¶42

Though learned counsel for husband has stated that there is a threat to husband’s life, nothing material has been placed on record before this Court to show any complaint registered by the wife either against the husband or his family members and so also, no other petition other than the restitution of conjugal rights is filed by the wife before the Court at Kollegala. Therefore, the statement made by learned counsel for husband is preposterous as no material is placed before the Court and it is hard to believe the same merely because he is working in a Bank holding key position and the same would not entitle him for transfer of the petition to the place of his work or residence. The convenience and hardship of the wife would have to be looked at. Therefore, the petition requires to be favoured for the wife. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Petition preferred by the wife in CP.No.39/2022

¶45

is allowed;

¶46

6 - CP No. 39 of 2022 C/W CP No. 106 of 2022

¶47

ii) The matrimonial proceedings in MC.No.6659/2021 filed by the husband pending on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kollegala and the same to be tried along with M.C.No.7/2022, which is preferred by the wife pending before the said Court at Kollegala;

¶48

iii) Petition preferred by the husband in CP.No.106/2022 is dismissed;

¶49

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application in CP.No.106/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same stands consigned to record.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Smt S Shobha v. Sri M Ganesh Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S Shobha v. Sri M Ganesh Murthy

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 Chayadevi(Geetha) Vs Sri R Shivanna

Dr. Sangeetha. G. B. Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivaasan N S Vs the Union of India

P S Aravindan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rujeravaa Vs Smt. Arpitha

Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka Vs Union of India