Allowed

Smt. Meghana D v. Sri Eleazer Kumar M

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024CP/201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC by a wife seeking to move her husband's divorce petition from Mysuru to Bengaluru, where she resides with aged parents. Relying on precedent that the wife's convenience governs transfer in matrimonial matters, the court allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.1241/2023 withdrawn from Family Court, Mysuru and transferred to Family Court, Bengaluru; records to be transmitted.

Smt. Meghana D Vs Sri Eleazer Kumar M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 201 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MEGHANA D W/O SRI ELEAZER KUMAR M AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.418, 18TH CROSS SARASWANTHINGAR, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHASHI B P.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI ELEAZER KUMAR M S/O MANI MUTHU D AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A NO.712, 6TH CROSS 1ST PHASE, 4TH STAGE VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570017.

¶13

(BY SMT. VEENA V., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ORDER TO TRANSFER M.C. NO. 1241/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, TO HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU FOR ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of M.C.No.1241/2023, pending on the file of Family Court, Mysuru to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2022 at Hudson Memorial Church, Bengaluru as per Christian customs. After the marriage, the petitioner resided with her husband at her matrimonial home. Due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife filed C.Misc.No.109/2024 before the CMM V, Bengaluru under the Domestic Violence Act. In that case, the respondent-husband is represented by counsel and prosecuting the case. The respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.1241/2023

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶24

before the Family Court, Mysuru. The petitioner's case is that since she resides at Bengaluru, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 150 kms. to Mysuru to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking transfer of the case.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the parents of the petitioner are aged persons, and she has to take care of them. She has no other family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Mysuru, which is at a distance of 150 kms., to prosecute the case. Moreover, the respondent – husband is working as a Second Division Clerk in PreUniversity Board, Bengaluru. Just to harass the petitioner – wife he filed petition at Family Court, Mysuru. Therefore, 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.

¶26

When the matter was called in the morning session, none appeared for the respondent. Hence, the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶29

matter was passed over. Even in the afternoon session also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶30

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

¶31

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2022, as per Christian customs. After the marriage, the petitioner resided with her husband at her matrimonial home. Due to differences of opinion, the petitioner started living separately with her parents. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife filed C.Misc.No.109/2024 before the CMM V, Bengaluru under the Domestic Violence Act. In that case, the respondent-husband is represented by counsel and prosecuting the case. The respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.1241/2023 before the Family Court, Mysuru. Since the petitioner resides at Bengaluru and has to care of her aged parents and as she has no other relatives or family members to

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶33

accompany or assist her, it would cause inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 150 kms. to Mysuru to prosecute the case and as the respondent also resides at Bengaluru, if the case is transferred to Bengaluru, it would be convenient for both the parties. This Court in Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR

¶34

5407 at Paragraph No.15 held as follows:

¶35

"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 life. Generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶37

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."

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience made out by the petitioner and the law laid down in the case of

¶40

Smt.M.V.Rekha (supra), which provides that the convenience of the wife is an aspect to be taken into consideration while considering transfer petitions, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶41

i) The petition is allowed.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:33356 CP No. 201 of 2024

¶44

ii) The case in M.C.No.1241/2023 on the file of Family Court, Mysuru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47