Allowed

Smt Dhatri Datta v. Sri Arun P Parameshwaran

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024CP/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for transfer of family court proceedings from Udupi to Shivamogga allowed. Court held balance of convenience favors wife burdened with twin children, despite husband's employment as associate professor.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings M.C. No.10/2024 pending before the Principal Judge Family Court, Udupi, shall stand transferred to the Principal Judge Family Court, Shivamogga.

Smt Dhatri Datta Vs Sri Arun P Parameshwaran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41590 CP No. 112 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CIVIL PETITION NO. 112 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT DHATRI DATTA W/O ARUN P PARAMESWARAN, D/O S K DHARMA DATTA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28/3, SUHRUDA KOTE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI ARUN P PARAMESHWARAN S/O P S PARAMESWARAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.303 ”SAIKRISHNA RESIDENCY” 1ST MAIN, HUDCO, DODDANAGUDDE UDUPI-576104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶14

(BY SMT. ANCHALA CLECTUS FOR SMT. A.G.ANEETHA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER WITHDRAWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 9 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 IN M.C.No.10/2024 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, UDUPI AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41590 CP No. 112 of 2024

¶18

FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the wife who is seeking for transfer

¶23

of M.C. No.10/2024 which has been initiated by the husband before the Prl. Judge Family Court at Udupi to the Prl. Judge Family Court at Shivamogga.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner - wife that she has a son and daughter who are twins and are aged about 7 years, to take care of and it would be extremely difficult for her to travel from Shivamogga to Udupi to prosecute the proceedings initiated by her husband. She has contended that the distance between Shimoga and Udupi is about 200 kms. and the travel time would be more than 3½ hours and the journey would also include travelling in

¶25

a ghat section.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41590 CP No. 112 of 2024

¶27

The respondent - husband, on the other hand, contends that it would be more convenient for the wife to attend the proceedings at Udupi rather than him attending the proceedings at Shivamogga since he is an Associate Professor in M.I.T., Manipal and would be hard pressed to seek leave to attend the proceedings. He submits that he would be willing to bear all the reasonable expenses for the travel of his wife to Udupi.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband also seeks reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Anindita Das¹ to contend that the Court should not be lenient to the wife merely on the ground that she would find it difficult to travel and each case would have to be considered on its own merits.

¶29

Learned counsel places emphasis on the judgment of

¶30

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delma Lubna

¶31

1 Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006)9 SCC 197

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:41590 CP No. 112 of 2024

¶34

Coelho² which was also a case relating to the wife having six year old child to take care of.

¶35

In my view, the argument of the respondent – husband cannot be considered. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has to take care of twins who are aged about 7 years and to expect a mother of twins to travel to Udupi on every date of hearing either with or without children would be a humongous task and would cause her untold misery and hardship.

¶36

On the other hand, the husband being an Associate Professor would not find it as difficult to travel from Udupi to Shivamogga. The argument that he would not be able to secure leave cannot be a ground because the presence of the husband would not be necessary on all dates and he can very well engage the services of an Advocate, and his presence would be required only on certain occasions. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a case where balance of convenience lies in favour of his wife, who is

¶37

2 Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes, 2023 SCC Online SC 440

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41590 CP No. 112 of 2024

¶39

burdened with taking care of twins, and the matter would thus have to be transferred from Udupi to Shivamogga. Consequently, the proceedings i.e., M.C. No.10/2024 pending before the Prl. Judge Family Court, Udupi shall stand transferred to Prl. Judge Family Court, Shivamogga. The husband and wife shall enter appearance on 06.11.2024 without any further notice and shall take further instructions. This Petition is, accordingly,

¶40

allowed.

¶41

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶42

HNM

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Dhatri Datta v. Sri Arun P Parameshwaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dhatri Datta v. Sri Arun P Parameshwaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Parwis @ Parwis Ullakhan Vs the Manager

Sri. Balaiah Vs Sri. C. Siddaraju

Sri. Sadiq Pasha @ Sadiq Khan Vs the Manager

Mrs Jayanthi Vs the State O F Karnataka

Sri. Siddaraju. H Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri M Balaji Vs Sri B P Rajendra