SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

SRIRAM RAMACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SANGEETHA – Respondent
CP 154/2020



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CIVIL PETITION No.154 OF 2020

Between:

Sriram Ramachandran

S/o Ramachandran

Aged about 43 years

Residing at B-508

St.Johns Woods Apartment

Near Tavarekere Main Road

Bangalore 560 029.

& Petitioner

[By:Ms.Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate

for Sri Rohan Kothari, Advocate]

And:

Sangeetha

W/o Mr.Sriram Ramachandran

C/o Jayakumar Jeganathan

Aged about 39 years

Residing at 6A, Kambla Heights

Kadri Kambla Road

Kadri, Mangaluru 575 004.

& Respondent

[By:Mr.K.G.Kamath, Advocate]

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying

to pass necessary orders directing that M.C.No.144/2020 be

withdrawn from the file of the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court,

Mangaluru, D.K., and transfer the same to the Court of the

Hon'ble Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and etc.

This Civil Petition coming on for Admission this day, the

Court made the following:

R

2

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-

husband

seeking

for

withdrawal

of

proceedings

in

M.C.No.144/2020 pending on the file of I Additional

Principal

Judge,

Family

Court,

Mangaluru,

Dakshina

Kannada and transfer of the same to the Court of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

1.

Facts of the case:-

(i)

The facts that are made out in the petition are

that the petitioner and respondent have entered into a

matrimonial relationship by solemnization of marriage on

06.12.2009 at Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu. It is stated that

subsequently the marriage was registered on 22.10.2010,

and that initially the petitioner and respondent were

residing at Bengaluru at the time of their marriage. The

further fact that is not in dispute is that the petitioner is a

software professional and has been working in 'Oracle India

Pvt. Ltd.,' while respondent is a doctor by profession

presently practicing at Mangaluru.

3

(ii)

It is stated that from within the wedlock, the

petitioner and respondent have two sons, viz., Master Neev

Sriram and Master Kanav Sriram, both of whom are staying

alongwith the respondent as on date, at Mangaluru. It is

submitted that there were differences in the matrimonial

relationship and frequent quarrel amongst them. In

December 2017, it is asserted that the respondent has left

the matrimonial home alongwith her children and has been

residing in Mangaluru ever since, along with her parents.

(iii) Facts would also reveal that there are various

litigations pending between the parties and at present,

M.F.A.No.3481/2020

filed

by

the

petitioner-husband

challenging the order passed in G & WC No.8/2018 is

pending consideration before this Court and also CCC

No.526/2020 (Civil) is stated to have been initiated by the

petitioner herein, which is pending consideration.

(iv) The visitation rights have been granted to the

petitioner-husband to meet the children two days in a week

during the week end at the place of residence of respondent

4

as

per

the

order

dated

22.09.2020

passed

in

M.F.A.No.3481/2020.

(v)

The petitioner in the meanwhile has filed the

present

petition

seeking

transfer

of

proceedings

in

M.C.No.144/2020 before the Family Court, Bengaluru

instituted

by

the

respondent

seeking

dissolution

of

matrimonial relationship and has submitted that the Court

at Mangaluru is about 350 Kms. from Bengaluru and

travelling such distance is difficult and inconveniences him,

that it interferes with his work and would involve obtaining

leave from his employer to attend the legal proceedings,

that there are other litigations pending before the High

Court

of

Karnataka,

Bengaluru

including

M.F.A.No.

3481/2020 and CCC No.526/2020 in which the respondent

is prosecuting through a legal counsel and accordingly, the

respondent would not find it inconvenient to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top