Allowed

Smt. Papu @ Lakshmi v. Sri. Srinivasa P

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024CP/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Bangalore to Mysore, relying on the precedent that the wife's convenience is a primary factor. The case was transferred to avoid hardship to the petitioner-wife.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of M.C. No. 5569/2023 from Bangalore to Mysore Family Court.

Smt. Papu @ Lakshmi Vs Sri. Srinivasa P — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO. 45 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PAPU @ LAKSHMI W/O SRINIVASA P. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RES OF 2554, 3RD CROSS 4TH MAIN, KALIDAS ROAD V V MOHALAL, MYSORE.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. KULKARNI JAYASHRI MURLIDHAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. SRINIVASA P S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RES OF NO.20, 5TH MAIN PUTTENHALLI, J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE BANGALORE 560078.

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SMT. NAGAVENI G.H.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE M.C. NO. 5569/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 5TH ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE TO FAMILY COURT, MYSORE TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.5569/2023 pending on the file of V Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore to the Family Court, Mysore.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 14.11.2010 at Shivamma Mahadevappa Kalyan Mantapa, Mysore 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 Mysore. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.5569/2023 before the V Addl. Principal Judge, Mysore. The petitioner also filed Cr.Misc.No.62/2023 before the Principal Family Judge, Mysore under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶25

Mysore, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 150 kms to Bangalore 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 daughter and she has no other family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of 150 Kms, to prosecute the case. Moreover, she does not have any source of income. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that even though the respondent is working in Chamarajanagara District, since his mother is taking treatment at Bangalore, he is presently residing at

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶30

Bangalore and he has to take care of her and therefore, it would be difficult for him to leave her alone and travel to Mysore to prosecute the case. 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 solemnized on 14.11.2010 at Shivamma Mahadevappa Kalyan Mantapa, Mysore 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 Mysore. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.5569/2023 before the V Addl. Principal Judge, Mysore. The petitioner also filed Cr.Misc.No.62/2023

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶34

before the Principal Family Judge, Mysore under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner is residing at Mysore

¶35

and has to take care of her aged parents and minor daughter and 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 150 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

"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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶41

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."

¶42

(emphasis supplied)

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:22635 CP No. 45 of 2024

¶46

considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be

¶47

allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

a) The petition is allowed.

¶50

b) The case in M.C.No.5569/2023 pending on the file of V Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Mysore.

¶51