Allowed

Smt M Smitha v. Sri M B Ananthapadmananbha

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023CP/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC praying for the transfer of divorce proceedings from Bangalore to Chikmagalur. The High Court, weighing the wife's financial inability and residence, ordered the transfer to facilitate the trial.

What did the court decide?

The divorce proceedings from the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore were transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagalur for disposal.

Smt M Smitha Vs Sri M B Ananthapadmananbha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL PETITION NO.49 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. M. SMITHA, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O SRI. M.B.ANANTHAPADMANABHA, D/O SRI. M. SHASHIDHAR, HOME MAKER, R/O MARKET ROAD, CHIMAGALURU CITY.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. M.B.ANANTHAPADMANANBHA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SRI. T. BHUJANGA RAO, R/AT NO.4-B, 1^ST FLOOR, BILVASHREE, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, GURURAJ LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 028. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. TAMOGHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO WITHDRAW THE DIVORCE PETITION M.C. NO.1120/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALORE AND

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶15

TRANSFER THE SAID DIVORCE CASE TO THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKMAGALUR, WHERE THE MAINTENANCE CASE IN CRL.MISC.NO.67/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION AND FOR CLUBBING BOTH THE CASES, TO RECORD COMMON EVIDENCE AND DISPOSAL BY ASSIGN COMMON JUDGMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-wife of respondent is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC with a prayer to transfer M.C.No.1120/2022 pending on the file of I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, to Principal Judge, Family Court at Chikmagalur for disposal.

¶19

Heard learned counsel, Sri.C.R.Ravishankar for

¶20

the petitioner/wife and learned counsel, Sri.Tamoghna for Sri.Raghuram Cadambi for respondent/husband. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 11.04.2016. The petitioner/wife and respondent/husband are living separately. It is submitted that petitioner/wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.67/2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. where the Family Court granted Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, which was challenged before this Court and this Court directed the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance during the pendency of RPFC. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner is not working and she is depending on her parents for her livelihood apart from maintenance granted by the Family Court. Learned counsel would submit that respondent/husband has initiated proceedings in M.C.No.1120/2022 on the file of Family Judge at Bengaluru under Section 12(1)(a) r/w 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel would submit that it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Chikmagalur to

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶26

Bengaluru and hence, it is prayed for transfer of proceedings from Bengaluru to Chikmagalur.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel, Sri.Tamoghna for Sri.Raghuram Cadambi for respondent/husband would submit that since respondent/husband is paying maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month, the petitioner can travel from Chikmagalur to Bengaluru to conduct the proceedings. Further learned counsel would submit that petitioner/wife had entered appearance before the Family Court and thereafter remained absent. Further it is submitted that M.C.No.1120/2022 is at the stage of final arguments.

¶28

While considering the transfer petitions filed under Section 24 of CPC, that too in matrimonial cases, the Court shall have to take note of the inconvenience or hardship that would caused to the wife along with social and financial status of the parties.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶31

In the instant case, the petitioner/wife is not

¶32

working and she is not having income of her own. The petitioner/wife receives Rs.8,000/per month as maintenance from the respondent/husband. The proceedings initiated by respondent/husband is pending consideration before the Family Court, Bengaluru. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that though the petitioner/wife appeared before the Family Court at Bengaluru, subsequently she could not be present before the Court due to financial difficulty and she has not lead her evidence in the proceedings before the Family Court. When the petitioner/wife is residing with her parents at Chikmagalur, it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings to Chikmagalur and if the prayer of the petitioner/wife is refused, the petitioner/wife would suffer more inconvenience and hardship. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:45290 CP No. 49 of 2023

¶35

¶36

M.C.No.1120/2022 from the Court of I

¶37

Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagalur, to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt M Smitha v. Sri M B Ananthapadmananbha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Smitha v. Sri M B Ananthapadmananbha

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

Sri M Haledeeshappa Vs Sri B G Satish

Sri K Sathish Vs the Joint Registrar of Co.Op. Societies

Sri B R Jagadish Vs Smt. Mallamma Dead by Lrs, Smt Parvathamma

Smt. Savithramma Vs Smt. Saraswathi

H B Shivaram Vs J M Harish Nayak

Sri Y Gopi Vs Smt Jayamma