IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.340 OF 2018 Between:
M.P.Vidyashree @ reena W/o Raghavendra. R D/o M.V.Purushotham, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.389, Devanga Street, Pete Malavalli Town ... Petitioner (By Smt. Harini Shivananda, Advocate) And:
Raghavendra.R S/o late H.B.Ramachandra, Aged about 38 years, R/at Sathyagraha Soudha, School Road, Shivapura, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. ... Respondent (By Smt. B.S.Lavanya, Advocate) This Civil Petition is filed under Sec.24 of CPC praying to a) Transfer the petition registered as MC.No.55/2018 before the Court Senior Civil Judge, Maddur to Principal Family Court, Mysore to be tried along with the maintenance petition registered as Crl.Mis.No.462/2018 on the file of Principal Family Court, Mysore. b) Pass such other appropriate judgment or order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Though this civil petition is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both parties.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer of MC No.55/2018 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Maddur to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, to be tried along with the maintenance petition registered as Crl.Mis.No.462/2018 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru.
3. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent, they were married on 30.05.2008 at Shivapura, Maddur Taluk. Out of the wed lock, first son was born on 23.04.2009 and second son born on 13.09.2014. On account of some matrimonial disputes and difference of opinion, they could not lead marital life together. As such, the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. At present petitioner-wife is residing in her parents house at Mysuru along with her two minor children. She has filed Crl.Misc.No.462/2018 seeking for maintenance before the Family Court, Mysuru Thereafter, respondent- husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Maddur to avoid payment of maintenance. The said petition which is numbered as M.C.No.55/2018. If petition filed by the respondent-husband is transferred, she can conveniently attend the Court proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on account of financial difficulty and for the reasons that to look after her two minor children, she is unable to attend the Court proceedings at Maddur. As such, she would be put to great hardship and inconvenience.
5. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent-husband having business at Maddur, which is quite nearer to Mysuru. Therefore, respondent’s mother has filed a Criminal case against the petitioner, which is numbered as Cr.No.317/2018 and the petitioner can attend the Court proceedings at Maddur. The respondent is ready to willing to bear the travel expenses. There are no valid grounds for seeking transfer of petition.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there are valid grounds for transfer of M.C.No.55/2018 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Maddur to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru.
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. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common question of fact and law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”
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 the 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 petitioner-wife has filed a M.C Petition before the Principal Judge, Family court, Mysuru for seeking maintenance for herself and two minor children. Wherein, their address is shown as resident of Mysuru. The petitioner has filed a petition and the respondent- husband address is shown as Malavalli. At present the petitioner is residing along with her two minor children, even though, Maddur is not far away from Mysuru. The petitioner do not have any independent source of income, in addition to that, she has to look after her two minor children, as such, she is unable to attend the Court proceedings at Maddur.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are valid grounds to grant the relief claimed. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C. petition No.55/2018, which is pending on the file of Senior civil Judge, Maddur, is ordered to be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru.
Registry is directed to issue intimation through concerned Courts for transmission of records.
In view of dismissal of the main, petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE rv