IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.184 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT.RAMYA B.R, W/O BHAGHIRATH A, D/O SRI B.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE(HR)PWCSDC, PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK, ELECTRA ‘A’ BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE – 560103, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, NO.012, ‘B’ BLOCK, SHARADHA PALMERA APARTMENT, PANATHUR, KAADUDEESANAHALLI ROAD, BESIDE GURUKUL SCHOOL, BENGALURU – 560103. … PETITIONER (BY SMT.MAMATHA D.N, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI BHAGEERATH A, S/O SRI N.ARASACHETTY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS PRINCIPAL MEMBER, TECHNICAL STAFF, ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD., PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK, MERCURY BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU – 560103, TEMPORARY RESIDENT NO.105, BLOCK 6, SUNCITY CLPD, IBLLUR, SARJAPUR JUNCTION, BENGALURU – 560102, PERMANENT RESIDENT NO.116, 13TH ‘A’ CROSS, 3RD ‘A’ BLOCK, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.DIVYA K, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASE IN M.C.NO.222/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT MYSORE AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This civil petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner – wife, who is the respondent in M.C. No.222/2018 pending before the Family Court, Mysuru, seeking transfer of the said petition to the Family Court, Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was married to the respondent on 17.04.2016 at Mysuru. After marriage, both petitioner and respondent stayed at Mysuru for some time, thereafter, they shifted to Bengaluru and on the date of filing of the petition, both petitioner and respondent were residing at Bengaluru. There was discord between the couple, as a result of which, they got separated. Thereafter, the respondent – husband filed a M.C. petition before the Family Court at Mysuru. The petitioner - wife was compelled to stay along with her parents at Bengaluru.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that even though both petitioner and respondent are residing at Bengaluru, the M.C. petition was filed before the Family Court at Mysuru with a deliberate intention to harass the petitioner – wife. There was no reason whatsoever to file the M.C. petition before the Family Court at Mysuru. The petitioner is finding it difficult to attend the court proceedings at Mysuru. In the event of transfer of M.C. petition from Family Court, Mysuru to Family Court, Bengaluru, it will be convenient for her to attend the court proceedings. Due to the filing of the M.C. petition at Mysuru, the petitioner is put to hardship and she is compelled to travel to Mysuru.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent – husband strenuously contended that the marriage had taken place at Mysuru. The parents of respondent are residing at Mysuru. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent had stayed at Mysuru. As such, the M.C. petition was filed before the Family Court, Mysuru. There are no valid grounds for transfer of M.C. petition to Family Court, Bengaluru. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. In view of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether a case filed by the respondent in M.C. No.222/2018 at Family Court, Mysuru, seeking divorce against the petitioner requires to be transferred to the Family Court at Bengaluru.
6. 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.
7. The said section confers general power to transfer, withdraw and re-transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage on the application of a party. The power of the High Court and District Judge are concurrent. The Court may also exercise the power suo motu. The section postulates that the Court to which the suit or appeal or other proceeding is transferred should be competent to try or dispose of the same. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the cause of action for filing of M.C. No.222/2018 has accrued at Mysore and that the Family Court at Bengaluru is not competent to try the said case. In other words, the Family Court at Bengaluru has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a case can be transferred from a Court where it was instituted and competent to try and has territorial jurisdiction to try the case, to some other Court, which does not have territorial jurisdiction. The cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. The point involved in this case is a pure question of law and its decision depends upon the construction of the words ‘competent to try’ occurring in Section 24(1) of the Code of Civil procedure.
8. As could be seen from the records and the cause title of the M.C. petition, both petitioner and respondent are residents of Bengaluru and even their present address is also shown as Bengaluru.
9. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 08.01.2018 said to have been written by the respondent – husband addressed to the Director, Pre-litigation Mediation Centre, Nyayadegula, Bengaluru, and contended that an attempt made by the respondent clearly goes to show that prior to filing of the M.C. petition before the Family Court, Mysuru, he has approached the Pre-litigation Mediation Centre at Bengaluru. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent while residing at Benglauru, has filed the M.C. petition at Family Court, Mysuru.
10. 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.
11. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner – wife is residing along with her parents at Bengaluru. The respondent – husband is also residing at Bengaluru. Under these circumstances, no hardship would be caused to the respondent – husband in the event of transfer of M.C. petition pending before the Family Court at Mysuru to the Family Court at Bengaluru.
12. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the M.C. petition filed before the Family Court at Mysuru by the respondent – husband in M.C. No.222/2018, requires to be transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru.
13. In the result, the Civil Petition is allowed.
M.C. No.222/2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, is directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Bengaluru.
14. Since the main petition is disposed of, I.A. No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ