Allowed

Smt. Rajashree v. Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024CP/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A transfer petition by a wife seeking to move her husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition from the Bengaluru Family Court to Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote, citing her inconvenience and lack of income. Relying on the wife-convenience principle, the court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer.

What did the court decide?

M.C.No.3438/2021 transferred from Family Court, Bengaluru to Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote; records to be transmitted; case to be disposed expeditiously.

Smt. Rajashree v Vs Sri Chandrashekar S — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL PETITION NO. 93 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RAJASHREE V W/O CHANDRASHEKAR S D/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT TAKSAHEELA VIDHYAKENDRA JADIGENAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562114

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S S/O SRI SUKANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO 03, 2ND FLOOR, I.R RESIDENCY NEAR JUBILEE HIGH SCHOOL NRI LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560016

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.3438/2021 TO THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HOSAKOTE IN WHICH THE PETITION IS PENDING IN M.C.NO.23/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.3438/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court to

¶21

the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote.

¶22

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2015 at Shiva Parvathi Kalyana Mantapa, Hosakote as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. Out of wedlock, a daughter was born. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents and minor daughter in Jadigenahalli, Hosakote Taluk from the month of June 2021. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.3438/2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and the petitioner-wife filed a petition for

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶25

dissolution of marriage before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote in M.C.No.23/2022. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Jadigenahalli, Hosakote Taluk, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 30 kms 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 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 30 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

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2015 at Shiva Parvathi Kalyana Mantapa, Hosakote as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. Out of wedlock a girl child was born. Since there was differences of opinion cropping up between the parties, from the month of June 2021, the petitioner started living separately with her parents and minor daughter. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and the petitioner-wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before the Senior Civil

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶33

Judge, Hosakote. Since the petitioner is residing at Hosakote 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 30 kms. to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. This Court in the case

¶34

Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR

¶35

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 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

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶38

which must be looked at while considering

¶39

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

i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:22549 CP No. 93 of 2024

¶45

ii) The case in M.C.No.3438/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote.

¶46

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

¶47

iv) The transferee court after hearing the parties is directed to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Rajashree v. Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajashree v. Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

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

Sri. Saten H Patel Vs the Chairman

Smt Shalini Vs the Executive Engineer

Smt Malathi Vs Sri Raghavendra

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna Vs the Commissioner

Mamatha Vs Annappa K

M/S Mukka Sea Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner