IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.123/2018 BETWEEN SMT. T. ANURADHA D/O TALWAR AMBANNA W/O S. JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA, 35TH WARD NEAR VALMIKI KALYANA MANTAPA AKASHAVANI, HOSPET NCC BELLARY DISTRICT – 583201 (BY SRI N.M. HANDRAL, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONER SRI S JAGADEESHA S/O B V SREENIVAS AGE: 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 7/a, 4TH CROSS, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDRA, R T NAGAR BENGALURU - 560032 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI GURURAJA S. SANGUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PENDING CASE BEARING M.C.NO. 562/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO FAMILY COURT AT HOSPET, TALUK: HOSPET DISTRICT BELLARY, FOR ADJUDICATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though this matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, arguments are heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer of case in MC No.562/2018 on the file of 5th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to Family Court (Sr. Civil Judge) at Hospet, Dist: Bellary.
3. Briefs facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent. They were married on 06.03.2016. On account of certain matrimonial disputes and complications the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the 5th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for dissolution of marriage, which is numbered as MC No.560/2018.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she was compelled to leave the company of the respondent- husband, as the parents of the respondent started harassing her mentally and physically. Being a lady, she is unable to stay at Bengaluru, as she apprehends life threat by the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the petitioner being a lady finds it very difficult to attend the court proceedings at Bengaluru, since, she is working at Belagavi in National Insurance Company Limited and she is intending to go back to Hospet to look after her parents there. Thus, it would be convenient for her to attend the court proceedings at Hospet.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent-husband is working as Senior X-ray Technologist in Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health. As such, every day his presence is necessary in the hospital. It is difficult for him to get the leave to attend the court proceedings at Hospet. Since, the petitioner is working at Belagavi, the transfer of the M.C. Petition to Hospet may not serve the purpose. As such there are no grounds to transfer the said case.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by both the sides, the only question that arises for consideration is “whether there are valid grounds to transfer the MC petition from the 5th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to Family Court (Sr. Civil Judge) Hospet”.
8. Generally the petition filed by the wife seeking for transfer of case will be considered sympathetically, as the cardinal principle of power under Section 24 of CPC is that ends of justice demanding the transfer of suit, appeal or other proceedings in matrimonial matters, the plea of transfer the cases, the Courts have to take consideration of economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strategy of spouses and behaviour and their standard of life, antecedents on marriage and subsequent thereon and under whose circumstances of the either of the parties in eking out their livelihood, under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life, has to be considered. Generally, it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at, while considering the transfer petition. But in all cases the Court cannot mechanically pass the orders on transfer of petitions. Some times, it may actually mean more hardship to the husband than wife, because in some cases the wife may be in much better position than the husband. Thus it may not be proper to blindly transfer the matrimonial cases on wife’s request. Under these circumstances, the Courts shall have to examine in a judicious manner on merits of the case and to consider the hardship of both the parties.
9. It is an admitted fact that the respondent- husband has filed a case before the 5th Additional Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru which is numbered as MC No.562/2018. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that before the filing of MC Petition the petitioner/wife was residing at Bengaluru and she has received the legal notice at Bengaluru. After filing of MC Petition she has shifted to Hospet. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Annexure-D - Court Summons, which has been served on the petitioner at Hospet.
10. It is pertinent to note that the cause-title in MC No.562/2018 disclose both the addresses of Bengaluru as well as Hospet. Thus it is evident that, prior to filing of the MC petition, the petitioner was residing in Bengaluru thereafter she has shifted to Hospet. The most important factor to be considered is whether the petitioner is residing at Hospet and she has got financial difficulties or other inconvenience to attend the court proceedings at Bengaluru.
11. It is submitted that the petitioner/wife is working in National Insurance Company Limited at Belagavi, as such there is no financial difficulty to attend the court proceedings at Bengaluru and to lead her life. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the travel expenses for the petitioner-wife.
12. Even though the petition is filed for seeking transfer of matter of MC petition to Hospet, the petitioner herself is not residing at Hospet, but she is residing at Belagavi. As such, the very purpose of transferring this matter to Hospet would be defeated.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no valid grounds to allow the petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay the travel expenses of Rs.3,000/- for each hearing date to be attended by the petitioner for the court proceedings at Bengaluru.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*