IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CIVIL PETITION NO.252/2019 BETWEEN:
MRS.ASHWINI ITAGALLI W/O PRASHANTH ITAGALLI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.33, 1ST FLOOR 3RD CROSS, KOTHANUR DINNE KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD ROSE GARDEN, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE BANGALORE - 76 … PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMU S., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR.PRASHANTH ITAGALLI S/O I MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 101, BUILDING NO.17 DREAM PARADISE LAYOUT BASAPURA MAIN ROAD OFF HOSA ROAD JUNCTION ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE – 560 100 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SURESH P., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER OF MC NO.114/2019 CASE ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT GADAG TO THE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.03.2014 at Gadag. Out of the marriage, the parties have a daughter aged three years.
2. The respondent has filed M.C.No.114/2019 against the petitioner before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
3. The petitioner is seeking transfer of M.C.No.114/2019 from Family Court, Gadag to Family Court, Bengaluru on the ground of hardship in traveling to Gadag with a minor child and traveling to Gadag affects the welfare of the child.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground that petitioner has suffered decree for restitution of conjugal rights and still she has not joined the respondent. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not at all aware of any such decree for restitution of conjugal rights and he attributes mala fides to the respondent in approaching the Family Court, Gadag in the light of petitioner’s own pleading that the parties last resided together at Bengaluru.
5. In M.C.No.114/2019, the present respondent himself has stated that himself and petitioner last resided together at Bengaluru and he admits that the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru. Therefore, two factors contemplated under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to file petition under Section 13 of the Act are in favour of the petitioner.
6. Despite that, the respondent has filed the petition at Gadag. First of all, the alleged decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not produced before this Court. It is not known whether that was a decree on contest. Since the petitioner has child aged three years, there is sufficient force in her contention that traveling to Gadag causes hardship to her and she may not be able to contest the petition M.C.No.114/2019 at Gadag effectively. Therefore, it is just and expedient to transfer the case as prayed for.
7. The petition is allowed. M.C.No.114/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru for disposal in accordance with law.
8. The I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag shall transmit the records of the case forthwith to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 07.12.2019 without any further notice.
Sd/- JUDGE KG