IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.324 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
MR.BIPIN B.E @ BIPIN BELLIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O B.T.ERAPPA, R/O.No.329, 17th MAIN, A.G.S.LAYOUT, AREHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 061 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRABHUGOWDA.B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.N.P.SABYA MACHAMMA @VARIJA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, W/O MR.BIPIN B.E, D/O LATE PALANGAPPA N.C, R/O 7TH WARD, 5TH CROSS, OPP: CORPORATION BANK LTD., GONIKOPPA, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 213 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.UDAYA SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO WITHDRAW M.C.NO.37/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF TH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT VIRAJPET AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO BE TRIED BY HON’BLE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ALONG WITH M.C.NO.3080/2018 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, heard arguments on merits for final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking transfer of M.C.No.37/2018 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Virajpet to the Court of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his legally wedded wife. They were married on 12.05.2017 at Virajpet, Kodagu District. On account of some difference of opinion and matrimonial dispute, they cannot lead the matrimonial life together. Even though the panchayath was conducted at Virajpet, they could not reunite. Though the respondent-wife is residing and working at Bengaluru, by suppressing real state of affairs, she has filed a petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Virajpet, which is numbered as M.C.No.37/2018. The petitioner-husband has filed a petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, which is numbered as M.C.No.3080/2018.
4. Reiterating the contentions made in the petition, the counsel for the petitioner-husband would strenuously contend that the respondent-wife has deliberately filed the M.C.Petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Viajpet with an intention to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings at Virajpet, as it is difficult for him to get leave frequently.
5. The counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the petitioner-husband and his family members compelled the respondent-wife to leave the matrimonial house, as a result of which, she was put to mental stress and she is residing in her parents house at Virajpet. Now she is working at Bengaluru. There is every chance that she may go back to Virajpet and stay with her parents. As such there are no valid grounds to transfer the petition.
6. 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.
7. Generally the leniency would be shown by the Courts in considering the convenience of the wife. But in the instant case, it is submitted that both the petitioner and respondent are Software Engineers working at Bengaluru. Since both the parties are residing at Bengaluru, they can conveniently attend the Court proceedings at Bengaluru.
8. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this civil petition is allowed. M.C.No.37/2018 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Virajpet is ordered to be transfer to the Court of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
Registry is directed to issue intimation to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Virajpet for transmission of records.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR/HB