IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE C.P.NO.337/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT. T.S.MEGHANA, D/O SALER THIMANNA, W/O T.R.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O NO.1725/A-40, NEAR SIDDAGANGA SCHOOL, SIDDALINGESHWARA EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 002. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
SRI.T.R.NAGARAJU, S/O T.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.289, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, XI MAIN, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 073. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.R.NAGARAJU – PARTY – IN- PERSON) - - -
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW M.C.NO.4107/2017 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FAMILY COURT AT DAVANAGERE FOR ADJUDICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife.
Sri T.R.Nagaraju-respondent/husband-party-in- person.
2. The civil petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the proceedings instituted by the respondent-husband from Family Court, Bengaluru to Family Court at Davanagere.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the distance between Bengaluru and Davanagere is about 250 Kms. and she is entirely dependant on her parents and it is impossible for her to travel alone to Bengaluru on every date of hearing.
5. On the other hand, the respondent/party-in- person submitted that he is suffering from migraine and he has to take care of his aged parents and in case the proceedings are transferred to Davanagere, he will be put to great inconvenience.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides.
7. It is well settled in law that though Section 24 of the Code confers power on Court to transfer proceeding, yet this power has to be exercised with circumspection and care. Convenience of the parties has to be taken into account as per the decision of the Madhyapradesh High Court in the case of ‘Smt.Abhilasha Chourasiya vs. Vijay Kumar Chourasiya’ decided in MCC No.495/2014. In the case of ‘RAJWINDER KAUR vs. BALWINDER SINGH’, in (2003) 11 SCC 726, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed transfer of proceeding taking into account the fact that wife was required to travel long distance and was required to take care of daughter aged four years. Similarly, in the case of ‘SUMITA SINGH VS. KUMAR SANJAY AND ANOTHER’, in AIR 2002 SC 396, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was the husband's suit against wife and, therefore, convenience of wife has to be taken into account and in the case of ‘RAJANI KISHOR PARDESHI VS. KISHOR BABULAL PARDESHI’, (2005) 12 SCC 237, wherein it has been held that in a matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife is of the paramount consideration.
8. In the instant case, admittedly, the distance between Bengaluru and Davanagere is more than 250 Kms. The petitioner is a housewife and she is solely dependant on her parents. Therefore, she is unable to travel to Bengaluru from Davanagere to defend the proceedings. The respondent-husband is already facing trial under Section 125(1)(A) of the Cr.P.C. at Family Court, Davanagere.
9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court and in the facts of the case, the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Sections 13(1), (1)(a), 1(b) of the Act in M.C.No.4107/2017, which is pending before the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Bengaluru, shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Davanagere. The Court at Davanagere shall decide the proceeding expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE TL