Allowed

Smt. Harshitha S v. Sri. Indresh B

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CP/519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from Bengaluru to Mysuru due to residence, distance, and care for minor son. High Court considered wife's convenience and precedent, allowing the transfer to reduce hardship.

What did the court decide?

The case pending in Family Court, Bengaluru (M.C. No. 4682/2021) is allowed, withdrawn, and transferred to the Family Court, Mysuru.

Smt. Harshitha S Vs Sri. Indresh B — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL PETITION NO. 519 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HARSHITHA S W/O INDRESH B D/O SURESH S AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NO.933/5, 25/2ND CROSS SANKRANTHI CIRCLE, HEBBAL VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE MYSURU-570017

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. INDRESH B S/O BETTASHETTY T AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.314, 7TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, NAGENDRA BLOCK BSK 3RD STAGE, GIRINAGARA BENGALURU-560050 (BY SRI. ONKARA K B.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO WITHDRAW THE CASE IN M.C. NO. 4682/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE IV ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶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 the transfer of M.C.No.4682/2021 pending on the file of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Family Court, Mysuru.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 14.04.2016 at Meenakshi Kalyana Mantapa, Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Bengaluru, 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 in Mysuru. Subsequently, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.181/2020 before the IV Addl. Family Court, Mysuru seeking maintenance. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.4682/2021 before the Family Court, Bengaluru

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶24

seeking dissolution of marriage. The case of the petitioner is that since she resides at Mysuru, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 140 kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence, she has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the case.

¶25

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 and minor son aged 7 years. The petitioner-wife also filed Crl.Misc.No.181/2020 before the IV Addl. Family Court, Mysuru seeking maintenance. The petitioner does not have any other family members or relatives, who can accompany or assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of approximately 140 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 petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that respondent is working in a private company and it would be difficult for him to avail leave frequently. Furthermore, the respondent-husband bears the responsibility of caring for his aged parents, which would make it difficult for him to travel to Mysuru to prosecute the case. Hence, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 14.04.2016 at Meenakshi Kalyana Mantapa, Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Bengaluru, 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 in Mysuru. Subsequently, the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶33

petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.181/2020 before the IV Addl. Family Court, Mysuru seeking maintenance. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.4682/2021 before the Family Court, Bengaluru seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner, who resides in Mysuru bears the responsibility of caring for her aged parents and minor son aged 7 years. 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 140 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

"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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶39

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 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."

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience

¶42

demonstrated by the petitioner and the legal precedent

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38566 CP No. 519 of 2023

¶44

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:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

a) The petition is allowed.

¶47

b) The case in M.C.No.4682/2021 pending on the file of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Mysuru.

¶48

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

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Harshitha S v. Sri. Indresh B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Harshitha S v. Sri. Indresh B

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

Smt Nagamani Vs Mr D Sreenivasalu Reddy

The Manager Vs Smt Chikkamma

Sri. K v Ramakrishna Vs Sri. Vinaya Kumar M B

Sri Syed Anees Vs Sri Mohammed Yusuf

H Mahesh Vs Anand

Druvakumar Vs Smt Pavithra P G (Dharshini)