Allowed

Smt. Sathmica K v. Sri Sai Sandesh B S

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024CP/88/2024

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024 IN THE HIGH…

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.17/2024 transferred from II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural to Family Court, Shivamogga; records to be transmitted; parties to appear on 27.07.2024.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Sathmica K Vs Sri Sai Sandesh B S — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 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. 88 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SATHMICA K W/O SRI SAI SANDESH B S D/O SADANANDA KALGUDI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A SADYOHATHA MAIN ROAD NEAR HOLE BUS STOP MALLESHWARANAGARA(GUNDAPPA SHED) SHIVAMOGGA-583201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KANISHK RAVINDRAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI SAI SANDESH B S S/O SAI KRUPA B S AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A AMMA HOMES, FLAT NO. FF, 2ND FLOOR OPP.KSIT COLLEGE, #2, 5TH MAIN RAGHUVANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560062.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K R.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN M.C.NO.17/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU RURAL TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶18

DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.17/2024 pending on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru to the Court of Family Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga.

¶21

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 11.07.2019 at Adichunchunagiri Kalyana Mantapa, Shivamogga 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. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.17/2024 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.C.No.51/2024 before the Family Court, Shivamogga for restitution of conjugal rights. The case of the

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶24

petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Shivamogga, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 310 kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Shivamogga and the respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural. The parents of the petitioner are aged persons, she has to take care of them and she has no other family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of 310 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.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that the respondent is working in BBMP as Assistant

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶29

Engineer. Hence, it would be difficult for him to avail leave often to travel to Shivamogga to prosecute the case. He further contended that the house in which they were residing at Bengaluru is now in the custody of the petitioner and she can stay in the said house whenever she travels to Bangalore to prosecute the case. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

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

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 11.07.2019 at Adichunchunagiri Kalyana Mantapa, Shivamogga 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 at Shivamogga. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.17/2024 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶34

M.C.No.51/2024 before the Family Court, Shivamogga for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶35

The petitioner is residing at Shivamogga and has to take care of her aged parents 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 310 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Even though the respondent has alleged that the petitioner is residing in Bangalore, he has not produced any documents to prove the same.

¶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

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶39

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 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 considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:22634 CP No. 88 of 2024

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a) The petition is allowed.

¶46

b) The case in M.C.No.17/2024 pending on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Family Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga.

¶47