SRI SUDHEER LAXMAN DIXIT v. Kumar

SRI SUDHEER LAXMAN DIXIT S/O LAXMAN DIXIT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT RAMABAI NAGAR GALATAGA NIPPANI TALUK BELAGAVI - 591237 …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. REVATHI S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN M.C. NO.7/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:21050 CP No. 175 of 2024 - 2 - ORDER This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.7/2024 filed by the respondent-husband pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District.

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

29.04.2021 at Bhagavathi Hall Gokul, Shiragaon Taluk, Karveer District, Kolhapur, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, on 09.03.2022, a boy child was born. After some time, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her minor child in Aryapu, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.7/2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani. Since the petitioner is residing with minor a son, aged two years, at Aryapu, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District, she filed this petition for - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21050 CP No. 175 of 2024 transfer of M.C.No.7/2024 filed by the respondent- husband to the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Puttur, D.K.District.

#3. The learned counsel the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is residing with two years old minor son at Aryapu, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nippani. Since the petitioner is residing with her two years old son at Puttur, she has to travel 560 kms. from Puttur to Nippani to attend the case and it causes more inconvenience to the petitioner, hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

#4. None appears for the respondent.

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

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

29.04.2021 at Bhagavathi Hall Gokul, Shiragaon Taluk, Karveer District, Kolhapur, as per Hindu customs. Since - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21050 CP No. 175 of 2024 there was a difference of opinion between the parties, after two years from the date of marriage, the petitioner started living separately with her two years old son at Aryapu, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District. Thereafter, respondent-husband filed M.C.No.7/2024 before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani for dissolution of marriage. Since the petitioner is residing with her two years old son and the distance between Puttur and Nippani is about 560 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Nippani 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21050 CP No. 175 of 2024 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 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 the convenience of the wife is an aspect that is to be taken - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21050 CP No. 175 of 2024 note of while considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: i) The petition is allowed. ii) The case in M.C.No.7/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, D.K.District. iii) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court. iv) 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 CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12