IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.255 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. S SHALINI, W/O KRISHNAMURTHY H C, D/O C SUBRAMANYACHAAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO./161, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI CIRCLE, RAMANJANEYA NAGARA, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M V VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI H C KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O H S CHANDRASHEKHARACHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO.170, L V COMPLEX, MUKTAMBIKA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA – 561 205, BANGALORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION TO TRANSFER M.C. NO.26/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR TO THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this civil petition is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent the same is heard on merits.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer of M.C.No.26/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent. They were married on 09.04.2014. Thereafter on account of matrimonial disputes and other complications both of them got separated. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage which is numbered as M.C. No.26/2015. The petitioner is residing in the house of her parents and she has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in Crl. Misc.No.110/2018 which is pending before the II MMTC, Bengaluru.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent and his family members assaulted the petitioner many times. In the event of attending the Court proceedings at Doddaballapur there is a threat to her life. The petitioner do not have any source of income and she is dependent on her parents, as such she is unable to attend the Court proceedings at Doddaballapur.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has left the house of the respondent as far back as in the year 2015, on the contrary she has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act with an intention to harass the respondent and his family members. Doddballapur is at a distance of 35 kms. As such, she can conveniently attend the Court proceedings at Doddaballapur. There are no valid grounds for granting the relief claimed by the petitioner.
6. In view of the rival contentions the only question that arises for consideration is that, “Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for transfer of petition ?”
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.”
9. In the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi –vs- Kishor Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife is the paramount consideration.
10. It is an admitted fact that the respondent has filed a M.C. Petition which is pending before the Doddablappaur Court. The petitioner has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act which is pending before the II MMTC, Bangalore. The cause title in M.C. No.26/2015 discloses that the petitioner wife is residing at Bengaluru in her parents’ house. The said fact is not denied. The petitioner is apprehending threat to her life at Doddaballapur. It is submitted that the wife is a B.Com. graduate and she is earning, but no records are placed to show that she is employed and has got sufficient income. No grounds are made out that the petitioner can afford to attend the Court proceedings at Doddaballapur.
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. No.26/2015 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Doddaballapur is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Bengaluru.
12. Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Doddaballapur for the purpose of transmission of records.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl