Allowed

Ayesha M E v. Dr Imran Khan

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023CP/411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer matrimonial proceedings regarding restitution of conjugal rights from Bengaluru to Mysuru. This facilitates joint trial with a custody petition and eases hardship for the petitioner living in Mysuru with her minor child.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.S. No. 170/2020 to Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to be tried alongside custody proceedings G & WC No. 4/2021.

Ayesha M E Vs Dr Imran Khan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 411 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

CIVIL PETITION NO.411 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AYESHA M.E. D/O.D.R.MOHAMMED ELIAS SAHIB W/O.DR.IMRAN KHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.26, 2^ND STAGE HUDCO, MYSURU – 570 015

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DR.IMRAN KHAN S/O.DR.AHMED KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.319 BUILDING NO.14 DISCOVERY GARDEN JABEL ALI, DUBAI-UAE PO BOX NO.122345

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶14

DR.AHMED KHAN S/O.LATE R.ISMAIL KHAN R/AT DOOR NO.8/31 SRK GARDENS JAYANAGAR EAST BANNERGHATTA ROAD 1^ST CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 041

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.RACHITA NANAIAH M., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE SUIT

¶18

¶19

CP No. 411 of 2022

¶20

IN O.S.NO.170/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Kumara K.G., learned counsel for petitioner and

¶24

Smt.Rachita Nanaiah M., learned counsel for respondent.

¶25

This petition is preferred by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in O.S.No.170/2020 to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru.

¶26

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitionerwife that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 12.01.2014 and a daughter born from the marriage, who is in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife.

¶27

The respondent-husband filed a suit in O.S.No.170/2020 seeking for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The parties are Mohammedans. Pursuant to filing of suit

¶28

for restitution, the respondent has also filed a petition for custody and guardianship of minor child in G & WC.No.4/2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru.

¶29

¶30

CP No. 411 of 2022

¶31

Admittedly, the respondent-husband is neither residing at Bengaluru or at Mysuru. It is submitted across the Bar that the respondent is presently residing in Dubai and his address is also shown as that of Jabel Ali, Dubai-UAE in the cause-title of the petition and he is represented by his father, who is his Power of Attorney Holder. Hence, the fact remains that the respondent is neither residing at Mysuru or at Bengaluru. He has filed the custody petition as stated above at the Family Court, Mysuru, in view of the jurisdiction of that particular Court. However, he has preferred the restitution of conjugal right suit at Bengaluru. When the respondent-husband has filed the custody petition at Mysuru and prosecuting the same through his power of attorney, who would have to invariably appear before the Family Court at Mysuru to conduct the case, to adduce evidence and to cross-examine the witness, the same could be done with the original suit wherein restitution of conjugal rights is filed by the respondent-husband either by himself or through the power of attorney holder. The distance between Bengaluru and Mysuru is 140 kms. and since minor child, aged about 05 years, is in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife, who is residing at Mysuru and attending to the

¶32

¶33

CP No. 411 of 2022

¶34

School at Mysuru, it would be cumbersome and cause lot of difficulty and hardship to the petitioner-wife to travel along with the minor child to Bengaluru to attend to the original suit to defend restitution of conjugal rights proceedings.

¶35

Considering the fact that the respondent is neither residing at Bengaluru or at Mysuru and he is presently residing in Dubai and his aged father is residing at Bengaluru, it would not make much difference for him to travel or to appoint any other suitable person to represent him to conduct proceedings before the Family Court at Mysuru. Keeping this in view, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) Petition is allowed ;

¶38

ii) The matrimonial proceedings pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in O.S.No.170/2020 is ordered to be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru to be tried along with G & WC.No.4/2021.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶41

Ayesha M E v. Dr Imran Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayesha M E v. Dr Imran Khan

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. Shashi Rani Vs Sri T.S. Nagaraju

Mr. Bhavish M Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

B Rudrappa Vs Marappa

Smt. K P Sharanya Vs Sri B K Karthik

Smt M U Seema Vs Subhashchandra B