Allowed

Mrs Alveera Menezes v. Mrs Nirmala Veena Nazareth

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024CP/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of a paternity declaration suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 from the Family Court, Bengaluru to Karkala, citing hardship in travelling 400 km while caring for aged parents and minor children. The court allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

O.S.No.413/2023 withdrawn from Family Court, Bangalore and transferred to Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala; records to be transmitted; expedited disposal directed.

Mrs Alveera Menezes Vs Mrs Nirmala Veena Nazareth — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 116 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS ALVEERA MENEZES W/O MR. APOLIAN MENEZES AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT DIVINE MERCY HOUSE JANTRA ANAND INDUSTRY OPPOSITE TO RAKTHESHWARI TEMPLE BELMAN POST, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 111.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A 1. MRS NIRMALA VEENA NAZARETH Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS COURT OF D/O ANDREW NAZARETH KARNATAKA R/AT NO.33, MATHURU KRUPA 4TH CROSS, BOOPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560094.

¶12

MR. SHARATH NAZARETH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS CLAIMED TO BE SON OF APOLIAN MENEZES MRS. NIRMALA VEENA NAZARETH R/AT NO.33, MATHURU KRUPA 4TH CROSS, BOOPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560094.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶14

MR. APOLIAN MENEZES S/O RAYU MENEZES AND CARMEN MENEZES AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DIVINE MERCY HOUSE JANTRA ANAND INDUSTRY OPPOSITE TO RAKTHESHWARI TEMPLE BELMAN POST, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 111.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS SERVED BU UNREPRESENTED: NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 07.06.2024)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC 1908, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER WITHDRAWING THE O.S. NO. 413/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE COURT OF LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, AND TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner seeking for transfer of O.S.No.413/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.3 and their marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2001 at St.Don Bosco Church, Kelmebet, Karkala. Out of the wedlock, two children are born and they are residing with the petitioner. The respondent is working at Riyad, Saudi Arabia. Hence, the petitioner was residing with her parents at Karkala. Respondent No.2 claims to be son of respondent No.3 through respondent No.1. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit before the Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore in O.S.No.413/2023 against respondent No.3 and petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Karkala, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶25

for her to travel a distance of 400 kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.3. Out of the wedlock, two children are born. The respondent No.3 is working at Riyad, Saudi Arabia. Hence, she is residing at her parents house at Karkala along with the children. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 filed a suit before the Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore in O.S.No.413/2023 against respondent No.3 and petitioner herein. The petitioner has to take care of her aged persons and minor children and she has no other male family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of 400 Kms, to prosecute the case and hence, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. But if the matter is transferred to Karkala, the respondent No.2 is aged 30 years and he can travel along with respondent

¶27

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶28

No.1 to Karkala and it would not cause any inconvenience to them. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the petition.

¶29

Respondents are served and unrepresented.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused

¶31

the petition papers.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.3 and their marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2001 at St.Don Bosco Church, Kelmebet, Karkala. Out of the wedlock, two children were

¶33

born and they are residing with the petitioner. The respondent is working at Riyad, Saudi Arabia. Hence, the petitioner was residing with her parents at Karkala. Respondent No.2 claims to be the son of respondent No.3 through respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit before the Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore in O.S.No.413/2023 against respondent No.3 and petitioner herein seeking for the following reliefs:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶36

(a) For declaration that the first defendant is the biological father of plaintiff No.2 and that plaintiff No.1 is the biological mother of plaintiff No.2;

¶37

(b) For permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from denying the paternity of the second plaintiff as the son of the first defendant born out of his physical relationship with the first plaintiff;

¶38

(c) Issue consequential order to enter the name of the first defendant as the biological father of plaintiff No.2 in the public records including educational documents;

¶39

(d) Grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

The petitioner is residing at Karkala. She has to take care of her aged parents, who are aged around 80 years and also take care of her minor children, who are 18 years

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶42

and 6 years respectively. As she has no other relatives or family members to accompany or assist her, it would be difficult for her to travel a distance of 400 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Respondent No.2 is aged 30 years and if the matter is transferred to Karkala, he

¶43

can travel along with his mother to Karkala.

¶44

8. Under the circumstances, the petition deserves to be

¶45

allowed. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) The petition is allowed.

¶48

b) The suit i.e., O.S.No.413/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is hereby withdrawan and transferred to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala.

¶49

c) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court.

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:21469 CP No. 116 of 2024

¶51

¶52

d) The transferee court after hearing the parties is directed to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Mrs Alveera Menezes v. Mrs Nirmala Veena Nazareth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Alveera Menezes v. Mrs Nirmala Veena Nazareth

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

Byregowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Loretta Lasrado Vs Mrs. Joyce Gibson

Ayesha Sidiqa Vs Mohammed Musarathulla

Shaik Ahmed Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike

Shubh Enclave Site Owners Association Vs Seeta Dega

D M Holdings Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka