Allowed

Smt. Shubha. K. B. v. Sri. Shishira Rao. H. a.

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2023CP/451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bengaluru to Sullia, noting the hardship of 350km travel for the petitioner residing in Kulotta Subramanya with a minor child.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of MC No. 3476/2022 from VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia.

Smt. Shubha. K. B. Vs Sri. Shishira Rao. H. a. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO. 451 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHUBHA. K. B. W/O. SHISHIRA RAO. H.A., D/O. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT SHADANANA, NUCHILA, KUKKE SUBRAMANYA POST, KUKKE SUBRAMANYA, KADABA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 238.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SHISHIRA RAO. H. A. S/O. ADITHYA. H. K., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. 45/14, 3^RD C CROSS, 5^TH PHASE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SUHAS H S.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO WITHDRAW AND TRANSFER M.C.NO.3476/2022 FROM PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, & ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

This petition is preferred by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings in MC.No.3476/2022 pending on the file of the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sullia.

¶25

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Customs and rituals on 01.01.2019 at Valleesh Bhavan, Kukke Suibramanya, D.K. District. After the marriage both lead happy married life and from their wedlock a female child was born on 06.01.2022, who is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that after she gave birth to the female child, there are certain difference of opinion between the husband and wife and respondent meted out harassment to her. Petitioner was forced to stay in her parents house. Thereafter the respondent and his family members started humiliating the petitioner and started to give mental torture for giving birth to female child. When Petitioner

¶27

¶28

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶29

requested respondent to take her and child to matrimonial home respondent started demanding dowry, therefore, petitioner went to mental depression and now she being treated by the psychiatrist.

¶30

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent instead of maintaining and taking care of the petitioner and minor child has failed in his duties, in turn, filed a fictitious and false matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court at Bengaluru seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶31

He further contends that Family Court at Bengaluru is at a distance of 350 kms. from the place of her residence at Kukke Subramanya and it will be difficult for her to travel to Family Court at Bengaluru to attend Court proceedings and also for the reason that she has minor child.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that she has taken shelter under her parents at Kukke Subramanya and staying with them. Since the petitioner is residing presently at Kukke Subramanya, it would be difficult for her to travel from Kukke

¶33

¶34

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶35

Subramanya to Bengaluru to attend the proceedings in the Family Court, which would involve lot of costs for stay, accommodation and food and the distance between two places is approximately 350 kms.

¶36

In view of this, learned counsel for petitioner contends that if the matter is transferred to Kukke Subramanya, where the petitioner is residing, it will be easy for her to attend to the case and she would not have to incur much expenditure. On these grounds petitioner seeks to transfer the proceedings pending at Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sullia.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends

¶38

that the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for petitioner are not correct, as the respondent is ready and willing to take petitioner as well as minor child, but it is the petitioner who abstained from the respondent and there is no fault on the part of the respondent. He further contends that

¶39

the matter was referred to Mediation Centre at Bengaluru to explore the possibility of settlement, which was unsuccessful and failed. He further contends that since he is ready and

¶40

¶41

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶42

willing to take care of petitioner and minor child, if the matter is referred once to Mediation there are every possibility of settlement of the dispute between the parties.

¶43

Under these circumstances, I do not find any

¶44

ground or reason to refer the matter to Mediation. As contended by the learned counsel already once the matter is referred to Mediation and it failed. Nevertheless, the respondent is inclined to take his wife and minor child and even if the matter is transferred it is open for the respondent to take care of petitioner as well as minor child. The hardship would be lesser if the respondent travels from Bengaluru to Sullia rather than petitioner traveling from Kukke Subramanya to Bengaluru with minor child which would incur expenditure towards stay, accommodation and food, moreover, the distance between two places is approximately 350 kms. Hence, I deem it appropriate to grant relief to the petitioner and the petition deserves to the allowed.

¶45

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) Petition is allowed;

¶48

¶49

CP No. 451 of 2022

¶50

b) The proceedings in MC.No.3476/2022 pending on the file of the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sullia.

¶51

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same stand consigned to records.

¶52

SdJUDGE

¶53

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Smt. Shubha. K. B. v. Sri. Shishira Rao. H. a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shubha. K. B. v. Sri. Shishira Rao. H. a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Theresa Educational Cultural and Social Development Society Vs State of Karnataka

St.Theresa Educational Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sowkhya College of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Mr. v K Ravindra @ R K Naidu @ Ravindra K Naidu Vs the Block Education Officer

Akash Kumar K Vs the Bangalore University