In matrimonial proceedings, the court must consider the convenience and welfare of the parties, particularly the children, when deciding on the transfer of cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner/wife is before this Court under Sec. 24 of CPC with a prayer to transfer the proceedings in M.C.No.5964/2022 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Shivamogga.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.N.Harish for petitioner/wife and learned counsel Sri.Amit A. Deshpande for respondent. Perused the Civil Petition papers.

3. It is submitted that marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 8/5/2014 and from the marriage, they have two minor children aged 7 and 5 years respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is residing at Shivamogga with her parents along with two minor children. Learned counsel would submit that respondent has instituted proceedings in M.C.No.5964/2022 under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage at Family Court, Bengaluru. Learned counsel would submit that it would be difficult for petitioner to travel from Shivamogga to Bengaluru to attend the proceedings along with her minor children. Learned counsel would also submit that Crl.Misc.No.128/2023 and M.C.No.91/2023 filed under Sec. 9 of the 1955 Act by petitioner/wife are pending before the Family Court at Shivamogga. Therefore, it is prayed that M.C.No.5964/2022 pending on the Family Court at Bengaluru be transferred to the Family Court at Shivamogga.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Amit A. Deshpande for respondent/husband would submit that petitioner/wife is working in a company situated at Bengaluru, but the petitioner has suppressed the said fact. Further, learned counsel would submit that petitioner has to look after his aged parents at Bengaluru. It is also stated that uncle of the petitioner/wife attempted to manhandle respondent/husband at Bengaluru. As there is likelihood of manhandling by uncle of the petitioner/wife at Shivamogga, learned counsel prays that other than Shivamogga, the proceedings be transferred to any other Court. Thus, he prays for appropriate order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the civil petition papers, I am of the view that petitioner/wife would be entitled for the relief sought in the petition.

6. Admittedly, respondent/husband filed M.C.No.5964/2022 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Benglauru and the cause title of the said petition would indicate the address of the petitioner/wife at Shivamogga. Therefore, the respondent/husband cannot dispute that petitioner/wife is residing at Shivamogga along with her parents. The petitioner has to look after two minor children aged 7 and 5 years respectively. Normally, while considering petition filed under Sec. 24 of CPC for transfer, more particularly, in matrimonial cases, the Court shall have to take note of the inconvenience or hardship that would be caused to the wife along with social and financial status of the parties. In the instant case, petitioner is residing at Shivamogga along with her parents and minor children. It would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Shivamogga to Bengaluru along with her minor children.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent/husband has to look after his aged parents and he has threat if he enters Shivamogga from uncle of the petitioner/wife. Admittedly, the incident of attempting to manhandle has taken place at Bengaluru. Moreover, the ground that respondent/husband has to look after his aged parents is not a ground to deny the transfer of proceedings. Further, learned counsel for respondent/husband would submit that uncle of the petitioner/wife is from Shivamogga. Therefore, he apprehends attack from uncle of the petitioner/wife. It is only an apprehension of the respondent/husband. Such apprehension of respondent/husband cannot be a reason to deny relief to the petitioner/wife.

8. In the above circumstances, the