IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CIVIL PETITION NO.316 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SMT.ROHINI W/O VIJAY KUPPAST AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS C/O PRASAD SIMPI R/AT NO.1270, 1ST B CROSS 20TH MAIN, JP NAGAR II PHASE BANGALORE – 560 078 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI., ADVOCATE) AND SRI VIJAY @ VIJAYA KUMAR KUPPAST S/O VIRABADRAPPA KUPPAST AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC:PRIVATE JOB C/O V.S.RAMDURGKAR ADVOCATE 1ST FLOOR, RAMDURGKAR WADA NEAR KRISHNA CLOTH STORES BAGALKOT 587 101 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARUN A.GADAG, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAWING THE MATRIMONIAL CASE IN M.C.NO.21/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BAGALKOT AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO BE TRIED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 29.06.2012 at Bagalkot. After marriage, petitioner and respondent last resided together at Bengaluru. Since the relationship between the parties turned sour, respondent/husband filed M.C.No.21/2016 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Bagalkot, against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
2. Petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.107/2016 before the 5th M.M.T.C., Bengaluru. She has also filed a complaint against the respondent and his relatives in Crime No.16/2016 before the Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, alleging dowry harassment. Now that case is pending in C.C.No.19840/2017 before the 6th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
3. The petitioner is seeking transfer of M.C.No.21/2016 from the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Bagalkot to the Family Court, Bengaluru, on the ground that she is residing with her brother at Bengaluru and she has no source of her own income. She seeks transfer on the ground of her financial constraints and the difficulty in traveling alone from Bengaluru to Bagalkot.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the difficulty in traveling is not the ground for transfer. He further submits that the respondent has left his job because of the harassment of the petitioner and now he is residing in Bagalkot and there are no valid grounds for transfer.
5. In support of his arguments he relies on the following judgments:
(i) Subramaniam Swamy –vs- Ramakrishna Hegde1;
1 AIR 1990 SC 113 (ii) Smt.Saranya Bhaskar –vs- Sri.C.Bhaskar2;
(iii) Manasa K.M., -vs- Dr. Ramachandraiah.S.3 6. In Saranya Bhaskar’s case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent itself it was held that each case has to be decided based on the facts involved in such case. Respondent himself in his divorce petition has stated that petitioner and himself last resided together at Bengaluru. He himself has furnished her address as Bengaluru.
7. There is nothing to show that petitioner has any source of her own income. In addition to that, in the criminal case filed by her, charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. Respondent is already attending two cases at Bengaluru.
8. The other two judgments relied upon by the respondent’s Counsel are not applicable to the facts of the case.
2 C.P.NO.148/2014 DD 04.12.2014 3 C.P.NO.247/2014 DD 26.08.2015 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, the apprehension of the petitioner that she may not be able to contest M.C.No.21/2016 at Bagalkot effectively has force. Therefore, it is just and expedient to transfer the case as prayed for.
The petition is allowed. M.C.No.21/2016 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Bagalkot, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-