SMT. SUMA C v. COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI KIRAN B C S/O LATE CHODEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT BHADREGOWDANA DOODDI VILLAGE HAROHALLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562112. (BY SRI. ANANTHAPADMANABHA G N.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023 THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN M.C.NO.14/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA TO THE FILE OF HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. 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.14/2022 filed by the respondent-husband pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura to the file of Family Court, Bengaluru.

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

15.06.2020 Gudde Basaveshwara temple, Kandankanahalli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District, as per Hindu rites and customs. After some time, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her mother in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.14/2022 under Section - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura. Since the petitioner is residing with her mother at Bengaluru, she filed this petition for transfer of M.C.No.14/2022 filed by the respondent-husband to the Family Court, Bengaluru.

#3. The learned counsel the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is residing with her mother at Bengaluru. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura. Since there are no male members to accompany her to attend the case in Kanakapura, she has to travel 70 kms. from Bengaluru to Kanakapura to attend the case and it caused more inconvenience to the petitioner, hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition.

#4. When the matter was called in the morning session, none appeared for the respondent. Even in the afternoon session also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023

#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 15.06.2022 at Gudde Basveshwara Temple, Ramanagara District, as per Hindu customs. Since there was a difference of opinion between the parties, after some time from the date of marriage, the petitioner started living separately with her mother at Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.14/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura for divorce. Since the distance between Bengaluru and Kanakapura is about 70 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Kanakapura to prosecute the case. She is residing with her mother and there are no male members to accompany her to attend the case at Kanakapura.

#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: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023 "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 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 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023 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.14/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. iii) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:19388 CP No. 445 of 2023 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.: 16