IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL PETITION No.223 OF 2018 BETWEEN Smt. Prathibha C.H., Daughter of Sri. Hanumanthaiah, Aged about 26 years, Residing at ‘Sree Ranga Nilaya’ 2nd Cross, Vidyanagara, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur District-572214. (By Sri. R.Pallava, Advocate) AND Sri. Kaushik S., Son of Sri. Sai Upendra Babu N., Aged about 28 years, Residing at No.1601, ‘Neeladri’ 3/1 Main, ‘B’ Cross, E & F Block, Ramakrishnanagar, Mysore-570022.
(By Sri. Amshith Hegde, Advocate) …Petitioner …Respondent This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of CPC, praying to withdraw M.C.No.573/2017 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur District where the petitioner is residing in the interest of justice and equity.
This Civil Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner is the wife, who is respondent in M.C.No. 573/2017. She has sought transfer of M.C.No.573/2017 from the Family Court, Mysore to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli. It is stated in the petition that the husband has intentionally filed the divorce petition against her at Mysore knowing very well that she stays at Chikkanayakanahalli. She has also stated that she is suffering from depression because of the respondent’s conduct. Mysore is at a distance of 145 Kms. from Chikkanayakanahalli and it is difficult for her to travel from that place to Mysore. Her parents are also aged. Her father is not in a position to render financial support to her. Therefore she finds it difficult to arrange for travelling expenses.
2. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the respondent’s counsel.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that since the petitioner is a resident of Chikkanayakanahalli and there is nobody to support her financially, she cannot travel from Chikkanayakanahalli to Mysore. He also argues that the respondent was very much aware that the petitioner was residing at Chikkanayakanahalli when divorce petition was presented in the Family Court at Mysore. In the cause title of the divorce petition, the petitioner is shown as the resident of Chikkanayakanahalli and therefore the divorce petition should have been filed at Chikkanayakanahalli court. He submits that valid grounds have not been shown for transferring the case from Mysore to Chikkanayakanahalli.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent refutes the grounds taken by the petitioner. He argues that the petitioner is now presently working at Infosys, Bengaluru. She is getting sufficient income. In the divorce petition her Chikkanayakanahalli address had to be given because at that time the respondent did not know the correct address. Infact some of the IT returns pertaining to the petitioner shows that at the time of presenting the divorce petition she was residing at Mysore. The marriage also took place at Mysore. This being the case the petitioner has come up with false grounds seeking transfer and therefore the transfer petition should be dismissed.
5. After perusing the documents produced along with the petition, it is found that at the time when divorce petition was presented at Family Court, Mysore, the petitioner’s Chikkanayakanahalli address has been mentioned. The divorce petition was presented on 23.09.2017. Some documents produced by the respondent along with I.A.2/19 shows that the petitioner was working at Mysore during the relevant period. This is not disputed by the petitioner. In the transfer petition she says that still she is staying at Chikkanayakanahalli, but the fact remains that now she is working at Bengaluru. Therefore there is suppression of facts. Apart from this, if the place of marriage is seen, in the petition itself it is stated that marriage took place at Mysore on 09.05.2016. The inference that can be drawn is that at the time of presentation of the petition, the parties last resided at Mysore. If she is now working at Bengaluru, it is not difficult for her to travel from Bengaluru to Mysore. Her stand that she cannot meet the travel expenses, cannot be believed at all. Only with an intention to harass the respondent the transfer petition is filed. Petition is devoid of merits. Therefore it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sd