Cross transfer petitions by wife and husband regarding matrimonial proceedings in Mysuru and Ramanagara; court allowed the wife's petition citing her convenience and transferred the Mysuru case to Ramanagara.
M.C.No.435/2021 transferred from Family Court, Mysuru to Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara; wife's petition allowed, husband's dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL PETITION NO. 97 OF 2022
C/W
CIVIL PETITION NO. 133 OF 2022
IN CP 97/2022 BETWEEN:
SMT. SHWETHA S W/O GURURAJU B AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.153 AAGHA LAYOUT NEAR MMU PHARMACY COLLEGE RAMANAGARA -562159
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI GURURAJU B S/O LATE N BHAVANI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.7437 2ND PHASE VIJAYANAGARA 4TH STAGE MYSURU-17.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.C.PRAKASHA .,ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) TRANSFER THE PETITION IN M.C.NO. 435/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU TO THE FILE OF HON'BLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
NC: 2024:KHC:18975 CP No. 97 of 2022 C/W CP No. 133 of 2022
RAMANAGARA, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.B) PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CP 133/2022 BETWEEN:
SRI GURURAJU B S/O LATE N BHAVANI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.7437 2ND PHASE VIJAYANAGARA 4TH STAGE MYSURU-17.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.C.PRAKASHA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHWETHA S W/O GURURAJU H N AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.153 AAGHA LAYOUT NEAR MMU PHARMACY COLLEGE RAMANAGARA -562159
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1] ALLOW THE PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF M.C.NO.64/2021 WHICH IS PENDING IN THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC A RAMANAGARA TO THE FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU. 2] ANY OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS THAT MAY BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
of CPC seeking for transfer of M.C.No.435/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.
Section 24 of CPC seeking for transfer of M.C.No.64/2021 pending on the file of the Add. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramangara to the Family Court, Mysuru.
respondent in C.P.No.97/2022) and their marriage was solemnized on 11.11.2010 at Sri.Basaveshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Ramangara, as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the wife was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house in Bengaluru. Out of the wedlock, the couple are blessed with two children. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Ramanagara since 2021. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.435/2021 before the Family Court, Mysuru, for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife also filed divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.64/2021 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. The case of the parties is that since the distance between Ramanagara and Mysuru is about 100 kms, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for them to travel and prosecute the cases. Hence, they filed the present petitions seeking for transfer of cases.
that after the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband in Mysuru. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, she started living separately with her parents in Ramanagara. He contended that the husband has filed a petition for restitution for conjugal rights before the Family Court, Mysuru and wife has also filed a divorce petition before the JMFC Court, Ramangara. He further contended that the petitioner-wife is residing in Ramanagara and she has to take care of her aged parents and two minor children. There are no other family members or relatives to assist or accompany her to Mysuru, which is at a distance of 100 kms, to prosecute the case and it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel. Hence, he sought to allow the petition filed by the wife and dismiss the petition filed by the husband.
is physically handicapped and he is residing with his aged mother at Mysuru. Therefore, it is convenient for him to travel to Ramanagara to prosecute the case. Hence, he sought to allow the petition filed by the husband and dismiss the petition filed by the wife.
their marriage was solemnized on 11.11.2010 at Sri.Basaveshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Ramangara, as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the wife was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house in Bengaluru. Out of the wedlock, the couple are blessed with two children. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with
her parents in Ramanagara since 2021. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.435/2021 before the Family Court, Mysuru, for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife also filed divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.64/2021 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.
respondent/husband. On 02.02.2024 and 07.02.2024, the matter was adjourned at request, to enable the parties to make their submissions on the merits of the matter. On 14.02.2024, learned counsel for respondent/husband sought for time to produce the medical certificate and hence, as a last chance, two weeks was granted. Today, when the matter was called out, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband again sought for time and submitted that inspite of his best efforts, he could not contact his client.
inconvenience for her to travel to Mysuru, which is at a distance of 100 kms, to prosecute the case.
"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 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."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC:18975 CP No. 97 of 2022 C/W CP No. 133 of 2022
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the wife's transfer petition or the husband's competing transfer petition should prevail for the cross-filed restitution and divorce petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. M.V. Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ SurajRelied on¶11
ILR 2010 KAR 5407 · Who else cites this
Smt. NandaKishori v. S.B. Shiua PrakashReferred
AIR 1993 Kar 87 · Who else cites this
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr.Referred
MANU/SC/0936/2001:AIR 2002 SC 396 · Who else cites this
Smt. Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak PujarReferred
MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shwetha S
Sri Gururaju B
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
