SMT. HEMA H V @ RANJIHA v. THIMMANA GOWDA H E

ORDER

This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.43/2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara/Honnalli to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura, Shivamogga District.

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on

18.05.2020 at respondent’s house in Hatturu Village, Honnalli Taluk, Davanagere 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 in - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22369 CP No. 131 of 2023 Shikaripura. The petitioner has filed M.C.No.1/2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.43/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara/Honnalli. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Shikaripura, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of about 70 kms to Harihara/Honnalli to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.

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 Shikaripura. The petitioner has M.C.No.1/2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights before the Senior - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22369 CP No. 131 of 2023 Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura. In that case, the respondent-husband is representing through his counsel. He further contended that the parents of the petitioner are aged persons and she has no other relatives or family members to assist her in traveling to Harihara/Honnalli, which is at a distance of 70 kms to prosecute the case filed by the husband in M.C.No.43/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara/Honnalli. 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.

The respondent-husband served unrepresented.

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

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2020 at respondent’s house in - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22369 CP No. 131 of 2023 Hatturu Village, Honnalli Taluk, Davanagere 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 in Shikaripura. The petitioner has filed M.C.No.1/2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.43/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara/Honnalli. Since the petitioner is residing in Shikaripura, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of about 70 kms to Harihara/Honnalli to prosecute the case.

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: - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22369 CP No. 131 of 2023 "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 Anr. MANU/SC/0936/2001:AIR 2002 SC 396 and - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:22369 CP No. 131 of 2023 Smt. Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561." (emphasis supplied)

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.