Allowed

Smt Yashaswini (Sahana) v. Sri Swamy (Tejas a)

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024CP/154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition from Arakalagudu to Somavarpet, citing hardship of travelling 80 kms while caring for aged parents. Following the court's precedent that wife's convenience governs matrimonial transfer petitions, the transfer was allowed.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.1/2023 transferred from Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgud to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet; records to be transmitted and case disposed expeditiously.

Smt Yashaswini (Sahana) Vs Sri Swamy (Tejas a) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 154 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. YASHASWINI (SAHANA) D/O SRI. GIRIYAPPA, W/O SRI. SWAMY (TEJAS .A), AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KODGE VILLAGE, KUSHALANAGARA TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571232.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H T.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI SWAMY (TEJAS A) S/O SRI. APPANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KONGALELE, MALIPATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALAGODU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE

¶16

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT H/S VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2024)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶19

THE CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO TRANSFER THE PETITION MC.NO. 1/2023 FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARAKALAGUDU TO THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SOMVARPET FOR ADJUDICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking the transfer of M.C.No.1/2023 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgudu to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet.

¶24

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2022 at Gowda Samaja, Kushalnagar as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner resided with her husband at her matrimonial home.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶27

However, due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Kodge village, Kushalnagara. Subsequently, the petitioner-wife filed M.C.No.33/2023 under Section 13 (1) (ia) read with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet seeking dissolution of marriage. The case of the petitioner is that since she resides at Kodge village Kushalnagar, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 80 kms to Arakalagudu to prosecute the case. Hence, she has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the case.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that subsequent to the matrimonial dispute, the petitioner has been residing separately with her parents in Kodge village, Kushalnagar and she has filed a petition in MC No.33/2023 for dissolution of marriage before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet. In that case the respondent - husband has appeared through his counsel and is prosecuting the case. The respondent has filed MC

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶31

No.1/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgud for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has to take care of her aged parents and the petitioner does not have any other family members or relatives, who can accompany or assist her in traveling to Arakalagud, which is at a distance of approximately 80 Kms to prosecute the case. In the light of these circumstances, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

¶32

Though the respondent - husband has been served but unrepresented.

¶33

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

¶34

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2022 at Gowda Samaja, Kushalnagar

¶35

as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, the petitioner

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶38

was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. However, due to differences of opinion, the petitioner has been living separately with her parents. Subsequently, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagud. The petitioner, who resides in Kodge village, Somavarpet bears the responsibility of caring for her aged parents. 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 80 Kms to Arakalgud to prosecute the case.

¶39

This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri

¶40

Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 at Paragraph No.15 has held as hereunder:

¶41

"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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶44

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 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."

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience

¶47

demonstrated by the petitioner and the legal precedent

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶50

established in the case of Smt. M.V. Rekha (supra), which emphasizes that the convenience of the wife is a significant factor to be considered when evaluating transfer petitions, this petition merits approval.

¶51

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

a) The petition is allowed.

¶54

b) The case in M.C.No.1/2023 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgud is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet.

¶55

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

¶56

d) The transferee Court, after hearing the parties,

¶57

is directed to dispose of the said case as

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:34053 CP No. 154 of 2023

¶60

expeditiously as possible and in accordance with

¶61

law.

¶62

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

Smt Yashaswini (Sahana) v. Sri Swamy (Tejas a)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Yashaswini (Sahana) v. Sri Swamy (Tejas a)

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

Smt Menaka @ Manka Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sanjeevamma Vs the Manager

Mrs Ramani Vs Abdul Khader

Sri. Satish Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Smt Shakuntala

Sri Yellappa @ Yallappa Since Dead by His Legal Heir Sri Krishna Vs the Deputy Commissioner