Allowed

Smt K P Bhanushaa v. Sri J Pradeep

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024CP/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 24 CPC praying for the transfer of a divorce petition from Tumkur to Srinivasapura. The court held that considering the wife's convenience and the ends of justice, the case should be transferred given the distance involved and her separate residence.

What did the court decide?

The case M.C.No.296/2022 filed in Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur is withdrawn and transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srinivasapura with transmission of records.

Smt K P Bhanushaa Vs Sri J Pradeep — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 92 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT K P BHANUSHAA W/O SRI J PRADEEP D/O SRI PRAKASHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O BANK STREET, YALDURU VILLAGE SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563103.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI J PRADEEP S/O SRI JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 5TH CROSS, NEW EXTENSION BEHIND VIDYAVAHINI COLLEGE KYATHASANDRA, TUMKURU 572104

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN M.C. NO. 296/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶18

FAMILY COURT, TUMKUR TO THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SRINIVASAPURA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.296/2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srinivasapura.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 20.10.2019 at Nandini Palace, Kalahasthipura, Near D.C.Office, NH-75, Kolar as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house at Tumkur. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Srinivasapura. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶25

divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.296/2022 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Srinivasapura, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of 140 kms to Tumkur 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 at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Srinivasapura Taluk. He further contended that the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.296/2022 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru. The parents of the petitioner are aged persons and she has no other relatives or family

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶28

members to assist her in traveling to Tumkur, which is at a distance of 140 kms to prosecute the case. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner-wife. He further contended that the petitioner-wife has filed petition in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil

¶29

Judge and JMFC, Srinivaspura and the respondenthusband is appearing through his counsel in the said case. The wife also filed criminal case in C.C.No.245/2022 under Section 498A of IPC. He further contended that in the divorce petition, the parties are said to be agreed to settle

¶30

the matter but so far the respondent has not come forward. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.

¶31

The respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶35

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 20.10.2019 at Nandini Palace, Kalahasthipura, Near D.C.Office, NH-75, Kolar as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house at

¶36

Tumkur. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Srinivasapura. Thereafter, the respondenthusband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.296/2022 before the

¶37

I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Srinivasapura, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of 140 kms to Tumkur

¶38

to prosecute the case.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

"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 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

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:19261 CP No. 92 of 2023

¶45

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."

¶46

(emphasis supplied)

¶47

Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience as made

¶48

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.

¶49