IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CIVIL PETITION NO.194 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Smt.C.S. Usha Rani @ Arun, D/o C.S.Shivashankare Gowda, W/o Sri.M.Lalith Kiran @ Chandan, Aged about 27 Years, Kunda Reddy House, Opp:Muthooth Finance Limited: Near Police Station, Renuka Nagar, Sarjapura, Bengaluru-561002.
(By Sri.Anandeeswara D.R. Advocate) AND:
Sri.M.Lalith Kiran @ Chandan, S/o Sri.T.B.Mahalingaiah, Aged about 35 years, Residing at Mudigere Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District-571 202.
( By Sri.Mahesh C.M, Advocate) …Petitioner … Respondent This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. praying to pass an order by transferring the MC No.90/2016 and the MC.No.99/2017 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkur to Principal District Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity.
This civil petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri.Anandeeswara.D.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Mahesh.C.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the records.
2. Petitioner-wife is seeking for transferring of MC No.90/2016 (filed by the respondent herein for dissolution of marriage) and MC.No.99/2017 filed by petitioner pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Tumkur to Principal District Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, contending inter- alia that petitioner has to take care of her ailing father who is undergoing dialysis for kidney problem.
3. Sri.Anandeeswara.D.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioner would reiterate said grounds as urged in the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.Mahesh.C.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent opposes the said prayer contending that petitioner herself has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in MC.No.99/2016 before Family Court, Tumkur and purported ground which has been urged for transfer of petition, namely, ill-health of her father, is only a story built up by petitioner and parents of petitioner are not residing with her but with her elder sister. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and on perusal of records, it would disclose that petitioner herself has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in MC.No.99/2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur.
6. Though ground urged in the petition for transfer being ill-health of petitioner’s father by itself would not be a ground for transferring the petition from Tumkur to Bangalore, this Court has also examined relevant attendant circumstances in order to examine as to whether prayer made by the petitioner is genuine or otherwise; and whether she would be really put to hardship if the proceedings are proceeded at Family Court, Tumkur, answer has to be necessarily in the negative for the reason, the distance between Tumkur and Bangalore is hardly 70 kms and both places are very well connected with all modes of transport. That apart, respondent has not indicated or specified any financial difficulty. Record of the proceedings in MC.No.90/2016 would disclose that petitioner is in the habit of changing the learned advocates often and she has changed the learned advocates on more than five occasions. There has been no inch of progress in the trial before trial Court. It would only indicate that petitioner is having clear intentions of protracting the proceedings on one pretext or other. Present prayer made in this petition is one such attempt. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no good ground to transfer the petition as sought for.
No grounds. Civil petition is hereby rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SB