Allowed

Mamatha v. Annappa K

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024CP/43/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition pending at Hiriyur, 80 km from her residence at Holalkere where she lives with her parents. Relying on the principle that the wife's convenience governs transfer of matrimonial cases, the court transferred the case to Holalkere.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.71/2022 withdrawn from Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur and transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere for expeditious disposal.

Mamatha Vs Annappa K — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 43 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAMATHA W/O ANNAPPA K D/O VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O CHOWDAGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK-577536

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ANNAPPA K S/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BEERENAHALLY VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK-572143.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE M.C. NO. 71/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HIRIYUR AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLALKERE, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the

¶21

petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.71/2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2009 at Halu Rameshwara Temple, Hosadurga Taluk as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Holalkere. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.71/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Holalkere, it would cause great inconvenience and

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶25

hardship for her to travel a distance of 80 kms to Hiriyur 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 after the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. Since matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her aged parents in Holalkere. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.11/2023 seeking protection against domestic violence before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere and in the said case, the respondenthusband is representing through his counsel. She has no other relatives or family members to assist her in traveling to Hiriyur, which is at a distance of 80 Kms, to prosecute the case filed by respondent-husband for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.71/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶28

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

¶29

The respondent-husband is served and

¶30

unrepresented.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 solemnized on 09.12.2009 at Halu Rameshwara Temple, Hosadurga Taluk as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Holalkere. The petitionerwife also filed Crl.Misc.No.11/2023 seeking protection against domestic violence before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere and in the said case, the respondent-husband is representing through his counsel.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶35

The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.71/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur. Since the petitioner is residing in Holalkere, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 80 kms to Hiriyur to prosecute the case.

¶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

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶40

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."

¶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

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:22370 CP No. 43 of 2023

¶45

considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be

¶46

allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

a) The petition is allowed.

¶49

b) The case in M.C.No.71/2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur is hereby withdrawn and the same is transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere.

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mamatha v. Annappa K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamatha v. Annappa K

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. Saten H Patel Vs the Chairman

Smt Shalini Vs the Executive Engineer

Smt Malathi Vs Sri Raghavendra

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rajashree v Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

M/S Mukka Sea Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner