Allowed

Smt Nikhitha v. Sri. Ashrith Kulai

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024CP/149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition filed under Section 24 CPC by a wife resident of Bengaluru seeking transfer of her matrimonial divorce case from Moodbidri to Bengaluru. The Court held that the wife's convenience is a cardinal principle and her hardship in traveling 350 km warrants transfer.

What did the court decide?

The divorce case M.C.No.16/2024 is transferred from Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Moodbidri to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

Smt Nikhitha Vs Sri. Ashrith Kulai — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 149 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT NIKHITHA D/O JAYA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 45034, WING 45 SOBHA DREAM ACRES PHASE 2 BALAGERE, BANGALORE - 560087.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.HARSHA G., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RADHA R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. ASHRITH KULAI S/O YOGESH K AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 45034, WING 45 SOBHA DREAM ACRES PHASE 2 BALAGERE, BANGALORE - 560087. (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO A) TRANSFER MATRIMONIAL CASE M.C.NO.16/2024 PENDING SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MOODBIDARI TO THE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU.B) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.16/2024 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Moodbidri to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶20

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 15.09.2018 at Padmavathi Kalyana Mantapa, Moodbidri as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent were residing at Bengaluru. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the respondent got shifted to Moodabidari and the petitioner continued to live at the residence in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.16/2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru, it would

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶22

cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 350 kms to Moodbidri to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is a software engineer and working at a private company at Bengaluru. Even the respondent is a Senior Software Engineer working in a MNC Company, Coinbase at Bengaluru. Only to harass the petitioner, the respondent has filed the divorce petition before the Court at Moodbidri. Since the petitioner is working at Bengaluru and she has no other family members to accompany or assist her in traveling to Moodbidri, which is at a distance of 350 Kms, to prosecute the case. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the petition.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that even though the respondent is working in

¶27

a MNC company at Bengaluru, after the covid-19 pandemic, he has been shifted to Moodbidri and has the facility of work from home option and occasionally he travels to Bengaluru to attend office. The respondent is ready to bear the expenses of the travel of petitioner to Moodbidri. Just because the distance from Bengaluru to Moodbidri is around 350 kms and it causes inconvenience to the petitioner, cannot be a ground for transferring the case filed by the respondent. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatri Mohapatra –v- Ashit Kumar Panda (2003) 11 SCC 731. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition papers.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 15.09.2018 at Padmavathi Kalyana Mantapa, Moodbidri as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent were residing at Bengaluru. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the respondent got shifted to Moodabidari and the petitioner continued to live at the residence at Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.16/2024 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri.

¶32

The respondent is not disputing that his office is at Bengaluru and after the covid-19 pandemic, the respondent had the facility of work from home option and hence shifted to Moodbidri and occasionally he travels to Bengaluru to attend office. Considering that the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru and working at MNC Company in Bengaluru and as she has no other relatives or family

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶35

members to accompany or assist her, it would be difficult for her to travel a distance of 350 Kms to Moodbidri to prosecute the case. Further, though the respondent offers to bear the travel expenses, that by itself will not have the effect of mitigating the inconvenience of the petitioner.

¶36

This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 at Paragraph No.15 has held as hereunder:

¶37

"The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶40

life. Generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common question of fact and law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions (See Smt.NandaKishori v. S.B.Shiua Prakash AIR 1993 Kar 87, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. MANU/SC/0936/2001:AIR 2002 SC 396 and Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561."

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience as made out by the petitioner and the law laid down in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha (supra), which provides that convenience of the wife is an aspect that is to be taken note of while considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:20128 CP No. 149 of 2024

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

a) The petition is allowed.

¶47

b) The case in M.C.No.16/2024 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Moodbidari is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶48

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

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Nikhitha v. Sri. Ashrith Kulai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nikhitha v. Sri. Ashrith Kulai

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

Riyazin Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Syed Kundmir Vs City Municipal Council

Hameed Vs Peraje Grama Panchayat

M/S Renacer Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

The Twinkle Vs the Commissioner

Prajwal Raikar Vs City Municipal Council