SMT. RAMYA T.P v. SRI. LOKESH N.B
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed off
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner – wife submits that petitioner is still travelling from Maddur and attending the work at Bangalore and despite her work being at Bangalore, since her children are staying at Maddur, attending the legal proceedings before…
- Para 55. Insofar as the requirement for consolidation of proceedings, it is a settled position of law that in order to avoid passing of conflicting decrees, both proceedings will have to be decided by the same Court. Accordingly, taking note of the inconvenience as pleaded by…
Judgment
(BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N.K. ADV.,) AND:
SMT. RAMYA T.P. (MANCHAMMA) W/O LOKESH B AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O THUBINAKERE VILLAGE HATHAGUR HOBLI, KESTHRU POST MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571476 ALSO WORKING AT LAKSHMI SUPER MARKET - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10513 CP No.112 of 2022 C/W CP No.35 of 2022 NO.470, DAKSHAYANI ARCADE 12TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU 560 098. (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y. ADV.,) …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.81/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVL JUDGE AT MADDUR TO THE IV ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, COURT AT BENGALURU AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CIVIL PETITION NO.35 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. RAMYA T.P. W/O LOKESH N.B. D/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT TUBINAKERE VILLAGE TUMAKURU MAIN ROAD HATHAGUR HOBLI KESTUR POST MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571476. (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y. ADV.,) ...PETITIONER - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10513 CP No.112 of 2022 C/W CP No.35 of 2022 AND: 1 . SRI. LOKESH N.B. S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 4TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT SOMASHETTYHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560090. ….RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.K. SIDDESWARA, ADV.,) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.4139/2021 IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER C.P.112/2022 is filed by the petitioner - husband seeking for withdrawal proceedings M.C.No.81/2021 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Maddur and has sought for the same to be - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10513 CP No.112 of 2022 C/W CP No.35 of 2022 transferred to the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore.
C.P.35/2022 is filed by the petitioner - Wife seeking for withdrawal of the proceedings in M.C.No. 4139/2021 pending on the file of the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore and has sought for the same to be transferred to the Senior Civil Judge at Maddur.
Admittedly, the proceedings for dissolution of matrimonial relationship in M.C.No. 4139/2021 is pending on the file of the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, and the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights between the same parties is pending adjudication in M.C.No. 81/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge at Maddur. Both proceedings are required to be heard by the same Court in order to prevent passing of conflicting decrees. Insofar as the situs of such proceedings, the learned counsel for respondent - husband - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10513 CP No.112 of 2022 C/W CP No.35 of 2022 would contend that petitioner - wife is presently residing at Bangalore wherein proceedings for dissolution of matrimonial relationship are pending.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner – wife submits that petitioner is still travelling from Maddur and attending the work at Bangalore and despite her work being at Bangalore, since her children are staying at Maddur, attending the legal proceedings before the Court at Bangalore would cause inconvenience. It is also submitted that the claim for maintenance still has not attained finality and accordingly, there would be difficulty in attending the proceedings at Bangalore.
Insofar as the requirement for consolidation of proceedings, it is a settled position of law that in order to avoid passing of conflicting decrees, both proceedings will have to be decided by the same Court. Accordingly, taking note of the inconvenience as pleaded by the petitioner - wife, it would be appropriate to have the proceedings for - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10513 CP No.112 of 2022 C/W CP No.35 of 2022 dissolution of matrimonial relationship filed by the husband pending before the Court at Bangalore, to be transferred to the designated Family Court at Maddur where proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights are pending.
In light of the above, Proceedings in M.C.No. 4139/2021 pending on the file of the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, is withdrawn and the same is transferred to the designated Family Court at Maddur, which is trying M.C.No.81/2021. The records relating to M.C.No. 4139/2021 to be transmitted forthwith to the designated Family Court at Maddur. Upon such transfer, both proceedings to be clubbed and disposed off by a common order.
Operative part
Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed off. VP Sd/- JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed off
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.