IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.40 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT.MAMATHA U.M, W/O SRI.K.N.ANIL KUMAR, D/O SRI.MAHADEVAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION, K.R.PETE, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SATHISH S.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.K.N.ANILKUMAR, S/O SRI.NAGENDRA KUMAR K.R, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.1093, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU – 570004.
OFFICE AT:
GOLD AND SILVER APPRAISER, NO.1152, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, K.T.ROAD, MYSURU – 570004. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.AKKI MANJUGOWDA AND VISHWANATHA G.N, ADVOCATES) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO a) TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.684/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISON) AND JMFC AT KRISHNARAJAPETE, MANDY DISTRICT. b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE 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 petition is at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent the matter is heard finally on merits.
2. The petitioner before this Court is seeking transfer of M.C. No.684/2017 pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), and JMFC at Krishnarajapete, Mandya district. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is husband. They were married on 24.06.2010 at Gundlupet in Chamarajanagar District.
Out of the wedlock a male child was born who is aged about 8 years. On account of matrimonial dispute and other complications the petitioner left the company of the respondent husband and she is residing in her parents house at K R Pete. She do not have any income and her son is studying in K R Pete. She has also filed a M.C. petition claiming maintenance before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Family Court, K R Pete. The petitioner being a lady she is in a disadvantageous position and is unable to attend the Court proceedings in Family Court at Mysuru.
3. Reiterating the contentions made in the petition the counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the M.C. petition is filed before the Family Court, Mysuru with a deliberate intention to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is dependent on her parents for her livelihood and she cannot afford to travel to Mysuru to attend the Court proceedings.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the grounds stated in the petition are false and baseless. Their son is in the custody of respondent and is studying in a school at Mysuru. The petitioner has deliberately left the house of the respondent without any justification. The petitioner is working as a teacher, as such, there will be no difficulty in attending the Court proceedings at Mysuru.
5. In view of the rival contentions, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether there are valid grounds to consider the prayer of the petitioner?
6. As could be seen from the cause title of M.C.No.684/2017 the petitioner is residing in K R Pete town and another address is shown as Ugenada Hundi village, Harave Hobli, Chamarajanagara taluk. It is stated in the said M.C. petition that the petitioner is working as teacher in School of India at K R Pete and she is drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- p.m. One of the main grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that her son is studying at K R Pete, but the document produced by the counsel for the respondent discloses that the said minor child is in the custody of respondent and is studying in school at Mysuru. Another important aspect that has to be considered is the distance between Mysuru and K R Pete, which is hardly 40-50 kms. from Mysuru and public transport is also available. Under these circumstances, the grounds stated for claiming transfer of M. C. No.684/2017 from Mysuru to K R Pete is devoid of merits.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is residing at K R Pete, as such the respondent-husband who has filed the petition for conjugal rights before the Family Court, Mysuru is responsible to pay the travel expenses of the petitioner to attend the Court proceedings before the Family Court at Mysuru.
8. In the circumstances, the civil petition is rejected. The respondent is directed to pay the travel expenses at Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl