IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CIVIL PETITION NO.345 OF 2016 BETWEEN: G.P.VEENA W/O R.NAVEENKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O PANDURANGANATH G.R. 4TH CROSS, JOGIMATTI ROAD PRASHANTH NAGAR CHITRADURGA – 577 501 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND R.NAVEENKUMAR S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O THIRUMALADEVARAHATTI SANTHENAHALLI (POST) GUBBI (THALUK) TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 104 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE MC NO.11/2016 FROM THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC, GUBBI AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14.03.2013 at Chitradurga. Due to some differences between the parties, the respondent filed M.C.No.11/2016 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gubbi.
2. Due to such differences, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Chitradurga. She is seeking transfer of M.C.No.11/2016 from the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gubbi to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, on the ground of financial hardship and hardship in traveling from Chitradurga to Gubbi to contest the said case.
3. The respondent in his counter opposes the petition on the ground that traveling from his residence at Gubbi to Chitradurga causes hardship to him and he has threats from the petitioner and her family members.
4. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for filing of the petition under Section 13 of the said Act before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction (i) the marriage was solemnized; (ii) the respondent resides and (iii) the parties last resided together. In the case on hand, the first two factors are in favour of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Chitradurga.
5. Though the respondent produced the copy of the complaint dated 25.10.2016, whereunder he alleged criminal intimidation by his in-laws, there is nothing to show that the Police registered any FIR on that basis. Therefore, the alleged threat is not substantiated.
6. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has any source of her own income. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that she will not be in a position to effectively contest M.C.No.11/2016 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gubbi, is acceptable. Therefore, it is just and expedient to transfer the case as prayed for.
The petition is allowed. M.C.No.11/2016 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gubbi, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, for disposal in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-