DR. POORNACHANDRA THEJASWINI P v. DR SUCHETH MURTHY

DR SUCHETH MURTHY S/O SRI. MALIKARJUNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/ AT NO. 199/1, 2ND FLOOR 7TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 4.7.2024.) HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 (1) OF THE CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED 1.TO PASS AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE MATRIMONIAL CASE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN M.C. NO. 1083/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE III ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, WHERE THE G AND WC NO. 3/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS PENDING ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

#1. This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.1083/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru to the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.

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

13.05.2013 Bramarambha Kalyana Mantapa, Chamarajanagar 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 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 separately with her parents. Thereafter, the respondent- husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.1083/2023 before the Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner has filed G & WC No.3/2023 for custody of the child before the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Tumakuru, it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to travel a distance of 80 kms to Bangalore 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 petitioner has to take care of her aged parents and her ten years minor boy. She has no other family members or relatives to accompany or assist her in traveling to Bengaluru, which is at a distance of 80 Kms, to prosecute the case. Moreover, she does not have any source of income. Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the petition.

#4. Respondent is served and unrepresented.

#5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 13.05.2013 at Bramarambha Kalyana Mantapa, Chamarajanagar 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. Thereafter, respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.1083/2023 before the Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner has filed G & WC No.3/2023 for custody of the child before the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru. Since the petitioner is - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 residing at Tumakuru and has to take care of her aged parents and minor boy aged 10 years and as she has no other relatives or family members to accompany or assist her, it would be difficult for her to travel a distance of 80 Kms to Bengaluru to prosecute the case.

#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 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 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 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: NC: 2024:KHC:25180 CP No. 196 of 2023 - 7 - ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) The case in M.C.No.1083/2023 pending on the file of III Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru. 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 DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26