IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL PETITION NO.223 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Chandana M.K. D/o. Kariyappa W/o. H.B. Jithendra Aged about 28 year R/at No.18, 11th Main Road, 3rd Cross, Ward No.3, Ananthapura, Yelahanka, Bengaluru- 560 064.
(By Smt. Radhika M., Advocate) AND:
H.B. Jithendra, S/o. Sri. Balakrishnaiah H.B. Aged about 34 years, R/at. 9/A, 8th ‘B’ Cross Opposite to Gulmohar Residence Near I.O. B Balaji Layout, Tatanagar, Bengaluru – 460 092.
… Petitioner … Respondent (By Sri. Belle R & Sri. Siddarth Baburao, Advocates -
Absent) *** This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to transfer the case in M.C.No.67/2016 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira to Principal Family Court at Bengaluru for the purpose of disposing the same on merits, etc.
This Civil Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt. Radhika M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The civil petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is heard finally.
3. This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been filed by the wife seeking transfer of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) from Sira to Bengaluru. From the pleadings of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner-wife is the resident of Bengaluru.
4. It is well settled in law that though Section 24 of the Code confers power on Court to transfer proceeding, yet this power has to be exercised with circumspection and care. Convenience of the parties has to be taken into account. In the case of ‘RAJWINDER KAUR vs. BALWINDER SINGH’, in (2003) 11 SCC 726, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed transfer of proceeding taking into account the fact that wife was required to travel long distance and was required to take care of daughter aged four years. Similarly, in the case of ‘SUMITA SINGH VS. KUMAR SANJAY AND ANOTHER’, in AIR 2002 SC 396, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was the husband's suit against wife and, therefore, convenience of wife has to be taken into account and in the case of ‘RAJANI KISHOR PARDESHI VS. KISHOR BABULAL PARDESHI’, (2005) 12 SCC 237, wherein it has been held that in a matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife is of the paramount consideration, the proceeding instituted by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act deserves to be transferred.
5. In view of the enunciation of law, I deem it appropriate to direct transfer of the proceedings instituted by the petitioner from Sira to Bengaluru.
6. Accordingly, it is directed that the proceeding instituted by the respondent under Section 13 of Act in M.C.No.67/2016 which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira, shall stand transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru. The Court at Bengaluru shall decide the proceeding expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*