IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.266 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Smt. B.L. Sandhya W/o Sri G. Pannagesh Aged about 28 years R/o No.301, Siddarth Apartment T.B. Dam Road Hosapete Bellary District. …Petitioner (By Sri. H. Aravind, Advocate) AND:
Sri G. Pannagesh S/o Sri G. Gopal Setty Aged about 32 years R/o No.42, CKS Enclave R/o No.42, CKS Enclave Opp: BTR Garden Muneshwara Layout Kudlu Main Road Haralukunte, Bangalore-68. …Respondent (By Sri K.V. Somashekar Reddy, Advocate) **** This Civil Petition is filed under Civil Petition under Section 24 of CPC, praying to transfer the M.C. No.643/2018 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to Hosapete, Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.
This Civil Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Though this Civil Petition is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, arguments are heard on merits.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer of M.C.No.643/2018 on the file of Principal Family Judge, Bangalore to Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete and to club the same with M.C.No.24/2018.
3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent. They were married on 19.2.2014 at Hosapete. On account of some matrimonial disputes and complications, the wife started residing in her parents’ house and she has filed a petition before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete for restitution of conjugal rights which is numbered as M.C.No.24/2018. Thereafter, the respondent has filed petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore which is numbered as M.C.No.643/2018.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is residing in her parents house at Hosapete and she is working in Jindal Factory at Torangallu. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner has got a female child and it is now aged about 5 years. Thus, she is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings at Bangalore.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has filed original suit before the Civil Court, Ballari for seeking partition in respect of property belonging to the respondent. The respondent apprehends of his life threat by the family members of the petitioner at Hosapete. As such, both petitions namely M.C.No.24/2018 filed by the petitioner and M.C.No.643/2018 filed by the respondent may be transferred to Ballari Court.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the only consideration arise is that there is a valid ground for transfer of petition as prayed for.
7. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suits, appeal or other proceedings. The relevant provision is sub- section (1)(b) of Section 24, which is as under:
“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.-
(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage,— (a) ….
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and (i) try to dispose of the same: or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn.
8. In the case of M.V. Rekha v/s. Sathya Alias Suraj reported in 2011 (2) Kar.L.J. 643, it is held as under:
“15. 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 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.”
9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete and respondent has filed petition for seeking divorce/dissolution of marriage before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore. The respondent is working as Engineer at Bangalore and he has sufficient income. The petitioner is residing in her parents house along with her minor child.
10. Under these circumstances, there are valid grounds for granting the relief claimed by the petitioner.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER (i) M.C.No.643/2018 on the file of Principal Family Judge, Bangalore is ordered to be transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete. The same can be clubbed along with M.C.No.24/2018 filed by the petitioner.
(ii) Registry is directed to send intimation to the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore for transmission of records to the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD