Allowed

Smt. Sowmya N Bhat v. Sri. Raghu Prasad M S

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023CP/42/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending in Bengaluru to Puttur. The transfer was ordered to facilitate the petitioner, who resides in Puttur with a three-year-old child, avoiding the difficulty of travel to Bengaluru for hearings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in M.C. No. 7196/2022 pending before II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is directed to be transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Smt. Sowmya N Bhat Vs Sri. Raghu Prasad M S — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:26930 CP No. 42 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

CIVIL PETITION NO. 42 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SOWMYA N BHAT W/O SRI RAGHU PRASAD M S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT KUPLACHAR HOUSE P.O. PUNACHA-574243 BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA PRESENTLY R/AT NO.4-197, MARIL CHANDUKUDLU HOUSE KEMMINJE, PUTTUR-574202 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RAGHU PRASAD M S S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMAIAH M K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.1099, 1^ST F MAIN ROAD 2^ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R NAIK, ADV.)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO A) TRANSFER M.C. NO. 7196/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:26930 CP No. 42 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Naik for respondent. Perused the civil petition papers.

¶20

The petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, having their marriage solemnized on 12.09.2016. The respondent filed M.C.No.7196/2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. It is stated that from the marriage, the parties have three years child, born in 2019.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai would submit that the petitioner/wife at present is residing with her parents at Puttur along with her child. It is submitted that the petitioner/wife is M.Sc graduate and she is having temporary job, working from home. It is submitted that it is difficult for petitioner/wife to travel from Puttur to Bengaluru to participate in the proceedings before the Family Court at Bengaluru that too along with her three years old child. The petitioner has

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:26930 CP No. 42 of 2023

¶23

¶24

placed on record the Aadhar Card and Voters ID to establish that she is residing at Puttur. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would pray for transfer of M.C.No.7196/2022 pending on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada for further consideration.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Naik for respondent would submit that the petitioner/wife is employed and she is getting income. Hence, she could travel from Puttur to Bengaluru and there is no other impediment or difficulty to the petitioner/wife to attend the proceedings before the Family Court at Bengaluru. Moreover, he submits that the respondent has the responsibility of looking after his aged mother at Bengaluru. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the parties and on perusal of the civil petition papers, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:26930 CP No. 42 of 2023

¶30

Admittedly, the petitioner/wife is residing with her parents at Puttur along with three years old child. The respondent/husband has instituted M.C.No.7196/2022 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. It is also noticed that the petitioner/wife has instituted M.C.No.18/2023 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Puttur for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. It would be appropriate to club the proceedings and to proceed further. Since the petitioner/wife has to look after the three years old child, it would be difficult for her to travel from Puttur to Bengaluru on every hearing dates to participate in the proceedings. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner/wife.

¶31

Hence, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

1) Civil Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC

¶34

is allowed.

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:26930 CP No. 42 of 2023

¶36

¶37

1. The proceedings in M.C.No.7196/2022

¶38

pending on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is directed to be transferred to the to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada for further consideration in accordance with law.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Smt. Sowmya N Bhat v. Sri. Raghu Prasad M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowmya N Bhat v. Sri. Raghu Prasad M S

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

Pallavi K M Vs P Umesh

Sri. C K Kariyappa Vs Smt. Gowramma

Sri T v Raghavan Vs Sri Thomas Mathew

Venugopal Reddy Vs Padmamma

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs Sri Shivaramu

Mr U Yeshwardhan Reddy Vs M/S Prabhavathi Group