- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30123
CP No. 250 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
CIVIL PETITION NO. 250 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1.
BHAGYALASKHMI S M @ PREETHI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
W/O LOKES BABU
D/O MANJUNATH
R/O BRUNDAVANA
2ND STAGE, MAIN ROAD
MALLESHWARA NAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
LOKESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O HANUAMAIAH
R/AT No.493, 13TH A CROSS
28TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 078.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.AMIT A DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE
CIVIL PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO A) TRANSFER THE CASE
BEARING NUMBER M.C.NO.5964/2022 FROM THE FILE OF LEARNED
III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO
THE
FILE
OF
LEARNED
PRINCIPAL
JUDGE,
FAMILY
COURT,
SHIVAMOGGA BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30123
CP No. 250 of 2023
The petitioner/wife is before this Court under Section
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 08.05.2014 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 Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘1955 Act’)
seeking
dissolution
of
marriage
at
Family
Court,
- 3 -
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
Section 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
- 4 -
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 Section 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
- 5 -
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.