IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.253 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT JYOTHI S W/O SATISH B.S.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.27, B BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, THRIUMALANAGAR ATTUR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 097. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHANTAKUMAR K C, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI SATISH B S, S/O SATYANARAYANA B.S. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.24, 3RD BLOCK, MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA II STAGE, MYSURU-570 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K N MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.554/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, TO ANY FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, FOR BEING PROCEEDED WITH AT THE LATTER COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this petition is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of the counsel for both parties, heard arguments on merits for final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking transfer of M.C.No.554/2017 pending before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent. They were married on 22.12.2002 at Benglauru. Thereafter, on account of some matrimonial disputes and difference of opinion, they could not lead marital life together. The respondent-husband has filed a petition for divorce, which is numbered as M.C.No.554/2017.
4. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she is residing in her parents house at Bengaluru. Due to financial and other difficulties, she is unable to attend the Court proceedings at Mysuru.
5. Counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that there is proper transport facility so that petitioner-wife can attend the Court proceedings. As such, there is no need for her to stay in Mysuru. Hence, the reasons for transfer of this case are not justified. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed. The respondent is ready and willing to pay the travel expenses of the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at Mysuru.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the only question that arise for consideration is that:
“Whether there are valid grounds to transfer M.C.No.554/2017 pending before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to Family Court, Bengaluru?”
7. 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.
8. 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.”
9. 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.
10. As could be seen from the records, the respondent-husband has filed M.C. petition before the Family Court at Mysuru. The cause title disclose that the petitioner-wife is residing at Bengaluru in her parents house at Bengaluru. She does not have any independent source of income. Hence, she is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings at Mysuru. The respondent-husband is a Retired Military Officer can afford to attend the Court proceedings at Benglauru. Hence, there are valid grounds to grant the relief claimed.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this civil petition is allowed. M.C.No.554/2017 pending before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru is ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bengaluru.
Registry is directed to issue intimation to the Family Court, Mysuru, for transmission of records.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR