SMT. YAMUNA G S NAYAR v. SRI TEERTAPRASAD H J

SRI TEERTAPRASAD H J @ KARTHIK SHETTY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O SRI. JAGADISH R/AT NAYAKANAKOPPALU VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK – 571418. (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND TRANSFER THE CASE M.C. NO. 58/2022 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18860 CP No. 161 of 2023 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, TO THE HONBLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.58/2022 filed by the respondent-husband pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, Mandya to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Channarayapatna.

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

30.05.2021 at B.G.S. Community Hall, Channarayapatna, as per Hindu rites and customs. After three to four months of the marriage, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Dandiganahalli Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Mandya District. Thereafter, the respondent- husband filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.58/2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala. Since the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18860 CP No. 161 of 2023 petitioner is residing with her age old parents at Dandiganahalli Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Mandya District, this petition transfer of M.C.No.58/2022 filed by the respondent-husband to the Family Court, Channarayapatna.

The learned counsel the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is residing with old-age parents at Dandiganahalli Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JKMFC, Nagamangala. Since the petitioner’s father is old and there are no other male members to accompany her to attend the case in Nagamangala, she has to travel 70 kms. from Channarayapatna to Nagamangala to attend the case and it causes more inconvenience to the petitioner, hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

The respondent even though served, has remained unrepresented. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18860 CP No. 161 of 2023

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 30.05.2021 at B.G.S.Community Hall, Channarayapatna, as per Hindu customs. Since there was a difference of opinion between the parties, after three months from the date of marriage, the petitioner started living separately with age-old parents Dandiganahalli Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Mandya District. Thereafter, respondent-husband M.C.No.58/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala for divorce. Since the distance between Channarayapatna and Nagamangala is about 70 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Nagamangala to prosecute the case. She is residing with age old parents and there are no male members to accompany her to attend her case at Nagamangala. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18860 CP No. 161 of 2023

This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 at Paragraph No.15 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 that must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common questions of fact law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:18860 CP No. 161 of 2023 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)