SMT ANURADHA ACHARYA v. SMT.NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATES)

(BY SRI. MAHESH B J.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE MC NO. 28/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGARA TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT UDUPI DISTRICT. HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.28/2022 filed by the respondent-husband pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara to the file of the Principal Family Judge, Udupi District.

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

10.12.2020 at Sri Vishwakarma Samskruthika Sabha Badavane, Saligrama Chempi, Udupi District, as per Hindu rites and customs. After two months of the marriage, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her parents in Udupi District. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.28/2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara. Since the petitioner is residing with her age old parents at Udupi - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022 District, this petition transfer of M.C.No.28/2022 filed by the respondent-husband to the Court of Principal Family Judge, Udupi.

3. The learned counsel the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is residing with old-age parents in Udupi District. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosanagara. Since the petitioner’s father is old and there are no other male members to accompany her to attend the case in Hosanagara, she has to travel 120 kms. from Udupi to Hosanagara to attend the case and it causes more inconvenience to the petitioner, hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

4. The learned counsel respondent contended that the parties have settled the matter, but they are yet to file the settlement before the Court. He further contended that he has no instructions as to whether the respondent is going to withdraw MC No.28/2022. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022

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

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

10.12.2020 at Sri Vishwakarma Samskruthika Sabha Badavane, Saligrama Chempi, Udupi District, as per Hindu customs. Since there was a difference of opinion between the parties, after two months from the date of marriage, the petitioner started living separately with her age-old parents in Udupi District. Thereafter, the respondent- husband filed M.C.No.28/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara for divorce. Since the distance between Udupi and Hosanagara is about 120 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Hosanagara 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 Hosanagara. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022

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 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:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022 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 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.28/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Udupi. iii) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20764 CP No. 442 of 2022 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.: 5