Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J
SMT. SWATHI T. N. – Appellant
Versus
SRI. AMAR B. K. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for transferring a matrimonial case. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. background of the case and parties' arguments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation on convenience and precedent. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. outcome of the petition. (Para 9) |
ORAL ORDER
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if transfer is made as sought by the petitioner, the respondent would be put to untold hardship and inconvenience. It is submitted that the petitioner has made out no bonafide grounds for transfer and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. After the transfer, the respondent has withdrawn the said MC petition and has filed another petition in MC.No.2607/2024 on the same ground of restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Bengaluru. The conduct of the respondent indicates that the respondent is harassing the petitioner on one ground or the other, and not appearing in the proceedings of criminal miscellaneous which has been filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance.
7. The Apex Court in the case ofSumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, [AIR 20
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
