Allowed

Ayesha Sidiqa v. Mohammed Musarathulla

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024CP/55/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil petition under Section 24 of CPC sought to transfer a restitution of conjugal rights suit from Ramanagara to Bengaluru. The wife, residing in Bengaluru with aged parents and minor children, faced severe inconvenience attending the distant Ramanagara court. The husband worked in Kuwait. The High Court allowed the transfer to the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

O.S.No.102/2023 withdrawn from Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

Ayesha Sidiqa Vs Mohammed Musarathulla — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 55 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AYESHA SIDIQA W/O MOHAMMED MUSARATHULLA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 5, 17TH CROSS AJP ABDUL KALAM MAIN ROAD GOVINDAPURA, BANGALORE 560045

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MOHAMMED MUSARATHULLA S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMETHULLA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO 1270, A MOTINAGAR MAIN ROAD NALBAND WADI MOHALLA RAMANAGAR-562159.

¶14

(BY SRI.AZARUDDIN., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE AFORESAID MATRIMONIAL CASE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.S. NO. 102/2023 PENDING IN THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR) AT RAMANAGARA TO PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of O.S.No.102/2023 filed by the respondent-husband pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagra to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 11.09.2019 at Masjid-e-Ansar, Ramanagara Town as per Sunni Muslim principals. After 13 years of the marriage, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her old age parents and two minor children in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in O.S.No.102/2023 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. Since the petitioner is residing with her age old parents and minor children at Bengaluru, she filed this petition for transfer of O.S.No.102/2023 filed by the respondent-husband to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is residing with old-age parents and two minor children at Bengaluru. The respondent-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara. Since the petitioner’s father is old and there are no other male members to accompany her to attend the case in Ramanagara, she has to travel 60 kms. from Bengaluru to Ramanagara to attend the case and it causes more inconvenience to the petitioner and also the respondent-husband is working in Kuwait. Hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

¶26

When the matter was called in the morning session, none appeared for the respondent, hence the matter was passed over. Even in the afternoon session, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶31

11.09.2019 at Masjid-e-Ansar, Ramanagara Town as per Sunni Muslim principals. Out of wedlock, one daughter and one son were born and they are residing with their mother, the petitioner-wife in Bengaluru. Since there was a difference of opinion between the parties, after 13 years from the date of marriage, the petitioner started living separately with her age-old parents and two children at Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed O.S.No.102/2023 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara for restitution of conjugal rights. Since the distance between Bengaluru and Ramanagara is about 60 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Ramanagara to prosecute the case. She is residing with age old parents and two minor children there are no male members to accompany her to attend her case at Ramanagara. Even the respondent-husband is not residing at Ramanagara, he is working in Kuwait.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶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 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 that must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common questions of fact and law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge 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

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶38

Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561."

¶39

(emphasis supplied)

¶40

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 the 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

¶41

passed:

¶42

i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The case in O.S.No.102/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:21367 CP No. 55 of 2024

¶47

iv) The transferee court, after hearing the parties is directed to dispose of the said case, as expeditiously as

¶48

possible and in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Ayesha Sidiqa v. Mohammed Musarathulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayesha Sidiqa v. Mohammed Musarathulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madhukar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Yeshodamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt. S Vasundara Vs Rudresh

Smt Sarojini Vs Shri Harish G v

Byregowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Loretta Lasrado Vs Mrs. Joyce Gibson