IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.283 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTHI R.C, W/O ANUP, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT POORNA CHANDRA NILAYA, MAHALAKSHMI NAGARA, III BLOCK, I MAIN, II CROSS, BATAWADI, TUMKURU – 572101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MADHUKAR M DESPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.ANUP S, S/O M.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, N0.24, SHREESHAILANIVASA, NEAR BALAJI BAR, G.MAIN STREET, HALASURU, BENGALURU – 560008.
ALSO AT:
R/AT JANGAMA ALAYA, 3RD MAIN, RAMAMOHANAPURA, SRIRAMPURA POST, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SATISH G RAIKAR, S SUBRAMANYAM AND K.NAGARAJA ADVOCATES) **** THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE BEARING M.C.2437/2018 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VTH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, AT TUMAKURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this matter is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. No representation.
3. This Civil Petition is filed for transfer of M.C. No.2437/2018 on the file of V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to Principal Family Court, Tumakuru.
4. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. They were married on 22.11.2012 at Tumakuru. The respondent and his parents started ill- treating the petitioner and harassed for getting dowry. The petitioner was driven out of the respondent’s house. Since then she is residing in her parents house at Tumakuru. Due to ill health and financial difficulty, the petitioner is unable to attend the Court proceedings in Family Court at Bengaluru.
5. This Court had no opportunity to hear the submissions of the counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether there are valid grounds to transfer the M.C. No.2437/2018 from Bengaluru to Tumakuru.
7. As could be seen from the records the respondent husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1A) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The address of the petitioner is shown as Srirampura, Bengaluru and Batwadi, Tumakuru. According to the petitioner she is residing in her parents house at Tumakuru and she do not have any independent income.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Considering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner being a housewife she is in a disadvantageous position, as such, she is unable to attend the court proceedings at Bengaluru. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, the financial condition and the convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Thus, there are valid grounds for granting the relief claimed.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the civil petition is allowed. M.C. No.2437/2018 pending on the file of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is transferred to the Principal Family Court at Tumakuru.
12. Registry is directed to communicate the order to the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for transmission of records .
Sd/- JUDGE ykl