The petitioner-wife filed the present petition seeking

withdrawal of M.C. No.178/2022 pending on the file of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru and transfer the

same to the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Belagavi.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for respondent.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would state

that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and

wife and their marriage was solemnized on 16.06.2021

and after six months from the date of marriage, the

petitioner and the respondent are living separately due to

uncordial relationship between them. It is stated that the

respondent has been constantly ill-treating the petitioner,

which lead the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home.

It is stated that the petitioner is aged about 22 years and

- 3 -

since she was living in her parents house, filed Crl. Misc.

No.86/2022 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Belagavi and on filing the

petition, the husband has filed M.C. No.178/2022 seeking

restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Mangaluru and would contend that the travel

distance from Belagavi to Mangaluru is nearly 420 kms.,

which causes inconvenience to the wife to travel to attend

the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal

rights and seeks for transfer.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would contend that the transfer sought by the

petitioner is not justifiable and the petitioner can attend

the proceedings at Mangaluru Court and there is no

sufficient cause given by the petitioner for transfer of the

petition and sought to dismiss the petition.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, it is undisputed fact that the respondent-husband

even before filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal

- 4 -

rights at Family Court, Mangaluru, the petitioner-wife has

filed Crl. Misc. No.86/2022 before the Family Court,

Belagavi. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing

at her parents house at Belgaum as is evident from the

address shown by the husband in M.C. No.178/2022 filed

for restitution of conjugal rights.

6.

The cardinal principle in a transfer matter is to

see the convenience of the wife and the necessary

grounds that need to be considered are:

i.

the age of the wife,

ii.

Family condition of the wife, which is undisputedly

she is staying at her aged parents house, who do not

have sufficient means at their disposal;

iii.

wife having a minor child

iii.

economic condition of the wife;

iv.

physical health;

v.

profession of the husband and more over the

convenience of the wife example traveling, connectivity of

the places and travel expenses.

- 5 -

7.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumita

Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 2001

(10) SCC 41, the transfer petition of the wife was allowed

taking into consideration the convenience of the wife.

8.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C.V.

Aishwarya VS. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha reported in

AIR 2022 SC 4318 has held at para No.9, which reads as

under:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power

under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is

that the ends of justice should 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 both the parties, the social strata of

the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their

standard

of

life

prior

to

the marriage

and

subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both

the parties in eking out their livelihood and under

whose protective umbrella they are seeking their

sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-

economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally,

- 6 -

it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at

while considering transfer.”

9.

In the light of the judgments sta