Allowed

Smt. Divya. G v. Sri. Pramodh. S. J.

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024CP/26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a civil petition filed under Section 24 of CPC by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of an ongoing divorce petition from Bengaluru Family Court to Tumakuru Family Court. Considering her residence, the distance of travel, her duty to care for a sick parent and minor child, and the principle that the wife's convenience is paramount in matrimonial cases, the Court transferred the

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal and transfer of M.C.No.4385/2020 from Family Court Bengaluru to Family Court Tumakuru with direction to transmit records and dispose within five months.

Smt. Divya. G Vs Sri. Pramodh. S. J. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 26 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. DIVYA. G W/O. SRI. PRAMODH S.J D/O. GOVINDAIAH N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT 'JANANI' 4th CROSS, D.DEVARAJ URS ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM, NEAR S.S.I.T. COLLGE TUMKURU - 572 105.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA V G.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. PRAMODH. S. J. S/O. JAYANNA GOWDA. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 70, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN SHIRADI LAYOUT, 4TH BLOCK AYYAPPANAGARA, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU-560 036.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1 WITHDRAW THE CASE IN M.C.NO.4385/20/20 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT SEEKING DECREE OF DIVORCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FROM THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU AND ASSIGN THE SAME TO THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TUMAKURU FOR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶18

DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.2 GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.4385/2020 pending on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2011 at Sri.Vishalakshamma Sadashivaiah Bhavan, Tumkuru as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock, a child is born. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶24

M.C.No.4385/2020 before the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Tumakuru, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 70 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-wife contended that the petitioner has to take care of her aged parents and minor child. Her mother is suffering from cancer. Since the petitioner was unable to travel to Bengaluru and attend the case i.e., divorce petition filed by the respondent, without the evidence of the petitioner, the matter has been posted for arguments. Now, the said order has been recalled. She has no other family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Tumakuru, which is at a distance of 70 Kms, to prosecute the case. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶29

petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that respondent is working in Food Corporation of India, Bengaluru and it is difficult for him to avail leave often to attend the case at Tumakuru. The divorce petition is filed in the year 2020 and once the matter is posted for arguments, the present petition is filed by the petitioner after lapse of more than four years and there is no inconvenience for the petitioner to travel to Tumkauru. He further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a petition before the Family Court, Bangalore seeking maintenance. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

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

¶32

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶35

solemnized on 24.04.2011 at Sri.Vishalakshamma

¶36

sadashivaih Bhavana, Tumkuru as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock, a child is born. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents at Tumakuru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.4385/2020 before the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶37

The petitioner is residing at Tumakuru and she has to take care of her aged parents and minor child. Her mother is suffering from cancer. The petitioner has also filed a suit for partition before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur and the respondent is appearing and contesting the said matter. 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 70 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

"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 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

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶44

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 as made

¶47

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:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

a) The petition is allowed.

¶50

b) The case in M.C.No.4385/2020 pending on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:22636 CP No. 26 of 2024

¶53

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

¶54

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, not later than five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt. Divya. G v. Sri. Pramodh. S. J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Divya. G v. Sri. Pramodh. S. J.

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

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rajashree v Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

Mamatha Vs Annappa K

Smt. Papu @ Lakshmi Vs Sri. Srinivasa P

K. Yogesh Prabhu Vs the Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath

Smt. Sathmica K Vs Sri Sai Sandesh B S