SMT. SMITHA RANI v. SRI. M. J. TARUN

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.4707/2022 pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura.

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

30.11.2008 Kuruhinashettara Chatra, Chennarayanapattana, Holenarasipura 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 age old mother - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023 in Holenarasipura. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.110/2015 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura for monthly maintenance. In the said case, the respondent- husband is representing through his counsel. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.4707/2022 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for restitution of conjugal rights. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Holenarasipura, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of about 200 kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that after the matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner is residing with her mother in Holenarasipura. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.110/2015 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura for monthly maintenance and in the said case, the respondent- - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023 husband is representing through his counsel. The mother of the petitioner is aged persons and she has no other relatives or family members to assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of about 200 Kms, to prosecute the case filed by the respondent-husband in M.C.No.4707/2022 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 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.

4. The respondent-husband served unrepresented.

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

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2008 at Kuruhinashettara Chatra, Chennarayanapattana, Holenarasipura as per Hindu rites - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023 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 age old mother in Holenarasipura. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.110/2015 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura for monthly maintenance. In the said case, the respondent- husband is representing through his counsel. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.4707/2022 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for restitution of conjugal rights. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Holenarasipura, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of about 200 kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023

7. 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: "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 - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023 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 Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561." (emphasis supplied)

8. 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: ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) The case in M.C.No.4707/2022 pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:24937 CP No. 158 of 2023 c) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court. d) The transferee Court after hearing the parties is directed to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22