SMT JAYALAKSHMI @ AMRUTHA H.N v. SRI ANJAN P @ DHARSHAN P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Both the petitions are allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In view of the above, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of both the parties, the following order is passed: i) ii) Both the petitions are allowed. The case in Crl. Misc.No.1252/2023 on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and…
Judgment
SRI ANJAN P @ DHARSHAN P S/O N PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 80, NEW NO M3, IRWIN ROAD 3RD CROSS K T STREET, MYSURU - 570001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N.,ADVOCATE) AND: HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SMT H N JAYALAKSHMI @ H N AMRUTHA W/O SRI ANJAN P @ DARSHAN P D/O G NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO MIG NO 601 SURYA NAGARA CHANDAPURA BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560009 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L.,ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION IN CRL.MIS.NO.1252/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28534 CP No. 146 of 2024 C/W CP No. 37 of 2024 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL TO THE PRL. FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, WHERE M.C.NO.714/2023 IS PENDING. IN CP 37/2024 BETWEEN: SMT JAYALAKSHMI @ AMRUTHA H.N. W/O SRI ANJAN P @ DARSHAN P AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO 601 MIG SURYA CITY CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560009 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L.,ADVOCATE FOR SIR.KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI ANJAN P @ DHARSHAN P S/O N PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 80, NEW NO M3, IRWIN ROAD 3RD CROSS K T STREET, MYSURU - 570001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N.,ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.714/2023, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT MYSORE TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ANEKAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28534 CP No. 146 of 2024 C/W CP No. 37 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed under Section 24 of CPC. C.P.No.146/2024 is filed by the husband seeking transfer of Crl. Misc.No.1252/2023 pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal to the Principal Family Court, Mysuru. C.P.No.37/2024 is filed by the wife seeking transfer of M.C.No.714/2023, pending on the file of Principal Family Court, Mysuru to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Anekal.
#2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in C.P.No.146/2024.
#3. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and their marriage was solemnized on
16.02.2023 at Gujarathi Samaja Bhavana, Yadagiri, Mysuru, as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent resided with her husband at her matrimonial home. Due to matrimonial disputes, the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28534 CP No. 146 of 2024 C/W CP No. 37 of 2024 respondent started living separately with her parents in Anekal. Thereafter, respondent-wife Crl. Misc.No.1252/2023 before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal for maintenance. In that case, the petitioner-husband represented by counsel and prosecuting the case. The petitioner-husband filed a petition in M.C.No.714/2023 for nullity of marriage, before the Principal Family Court, Mysuru.
#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the respondent-wife filed Crl. Misc.No. 1252/2023 for maintenance before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal and the petitioner-husband filed M.C.No.714/2023 for nullity of marriage before the Principal Family Court, Mysuru. The distance from Mysuru to Anekal is 170 kms. It is inconvenient for the petitioner- husband to go to Anekal from Mysuru. Hence, he contended that if both the cases are to be transferred to Bengaluru, it is convenient for both the parties. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28534 CP No. 146 of 2024 C/W CP No. 37 of 2024
#5. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that if the petitioner-husband wants to transfer both the cases to Bengaluru, he has to bear the traveling expenses of the respondent-wife to come to Bengaluru for prosecuting the case.
#6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband agreed for payment of traveling expenses respondent-wife.
#7. In view of the above, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of both the parties, the following order is passed: i) ii) Both the petitions are allowed. The case in Crl. Misc.No.1252/2023 on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru. iii) The case in M.C.No.714/2023, on the file of Principal Family Court, Mysuru is hereby - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:28534 CP No. 146 of 2024 C/W CP No. 37 of 2024 withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru. iv) The transferor Courts are hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court. v) The transferee court after hearing the parties is directed to dispose of the said cases as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. vi) The petitioner-husband is directed to pay traveling expenses of Rs.500/- to the respondent-wife as and when the respondent appears before the Court. vii) In view of disposal of the main petitions, all pending applications, stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Both the petitions are allowed
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 treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.