In matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife is a paramount consideration in transfer applications under Section 24 of CPC.

ORAL ORDER

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer MC.No.2607/2024 instituted by the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights, pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Bangarpet, Kolar District.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing in Bangarpet, along with her minor child, who is aged about 6 years 11 months. She is staying in her parental house. The distance between Bangarpet and Bengaluru is approximately 90 kilometers, causing hardship and inconvenience to her, in attending the proceedings initiated by her husband at Bengaluru. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner-wife had filed CP.No.357/2019 seeking to transfer MC.No.2736/2018, which was filed by the respondent- husband for restitution of conjugal rights at the Family Court, Bengaluru, to be transferred to the K.G.F. in Kolar District. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2020, allowed the civil petition and transferred MC.No.2736/2018 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at K.G.F., Kolar District. After the transfer, the respondent has withdrawn the said MC.No.2736/2018 and has now again filed another matrimonial petition in MC.No.2607/2024 on the same ground, before the Family Court, Bengaluru. The conduct of the respondent is malafide and with an intention to see that the petitioner does not get the maintenance awarded in the criminal miscellaneous which is pending before the Court at Bangarpet.

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.

5. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2014, as per the customs prevailing in their community. From the wedlock, a child is born, who is now aged about 6 years 11 months and is under the care and custody of the petitioner-wife who is residing at Bangarpet. The respondent-husband had filed MC.No.2736/2018 by invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Bengaluru. The petitioner-wife had filed CP.No.357/2019 seeking for transfer of the said MC.No.2736/2019, making a ground of inconvenience and this Court allowed the petition and transferred MC.No.2736/2018 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, at KGF, Kolar District.

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 cardinal principle reiterated in catena of judgments in line, is that in matrimonial cases where the wife seeks transfer by invoking Section 24 of CPC, the convenience of the wife is paramount concern, rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband.

7. The Apex Court in the case ofSumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, [AIR 2002 SC 396], held that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha , [ Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 ] (Aishwarya) has held at pa