Allowed

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi v. Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024CP/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from Devanahalli to Chitradurga, citing hardship in travelling 206 kms while caring for aged parents. Relying on precedent that the wife's convenience governs transfer petitions, the High Court allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.81/2023 transferred from Devanahalli to II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga; records to be transmitted; expeditious disposal directed.

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi Vs Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 219 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. T. DHANALAKSHMI W/O K KUMAR @ MADHUKUMAR D/O H R THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA KRUPA 7TH CROSS, EAST, JCR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA TOWN 577501

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NIYAZUDDIN M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. K. KUMAR @ MADHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PROGRAM MANAGER NRLM, TALUK PANCHAYATH KANAKAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PERMANENT R/AT DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110. AND ALSO R/AT 2ND CROSS 3RD MAIN SHARADA NAGAR VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR VEDANTHA PU COLLEGE VASANTHAPURA (WARD NO. 197) BENGALURU 560 061

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE M.C.NO. 81/2023 FROM

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶18

THE FILE OF THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE COURT OF THE HONBLE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking the transfer of M.C.No.81/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural to the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga.

¶23

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 16.06.2022 at Chitradurga as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner resided with her husband at her matrimonial home. However, due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner started living

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶26

separately with her parents. Subsequently, the petitionerwife filed M.C.No.76/2024 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga for restitution of conjugal rights. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.81/2023 before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural seeking dissolution of marriage. The case of the petitioner is that since she resides at Chitradurga, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 206 kms to Devanahalli to prosecute the case. Hence, she has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the case.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that subsequent to the matrimonial dispute, the petitioner has been residing separately with her parents and she has to take care of her aged parents. The petitioner-wife filed M.C.No.76/2024 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga for restitution of conjugal rights. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶30

13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.81/2023 before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner does not have any other family members or relatives, who can accompany or assist her in traveling to Devanahalli, which is at a distance of approximately 206

¶31

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 petitionerwife. Hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that respondent is residing with his age old parents in Bengaluru and his parents are suffering from ailments and therefore, it would be difficult for him to travel to Chitradurga to prosecute the case. Hence, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused

¶35

the petition papers.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 16.06.2022 at Chitradurga as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner resided with her husband at her matrimonial home. However, due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner started living separately with her parents. Subsequently, the petitioner-wife filed M.C.No.76/2024 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga for restitution of conjugal rights. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.81/2023 before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner, who resides in Chitradurga 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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶39

travel a distance of 206 Kms to Devanahalli to prosecute the case.

¶40

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:

¶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 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

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶43

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."

¶44

(emphasis supplied)

¶45

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience demonstrated by the petitioner and the legal precedent 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. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) The petition is allowed.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31091 CP No. 219 of 2024

¶50

b) The case in M.C.No.81/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga.

¶51

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

¶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/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi v. Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi v. Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

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

Kempegowda Vs Sunil Kumar S S

Sri M Munikrishnappa Vs Sri Subhranarayan Patra

Sri Purushotham Vs the Managing Director

Baby Manasa Vs Sri Lakshmana Gowda B N

Mrs. Meena Vs Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Imthiyaz Vs Sri Susheel Kumar