Smt Namratha H G vs Sri Rahul A
2021 Latest Caselaw 807 Kant

                                  1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

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

              CIVIL PETITION No.179/2020

Between:

Smt. Namratha H.G.,
W/o Rahul A.,
D/o Giridhar H.V.,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at Door No.757, "Nemmadi",
9th Main Road, B Block,
Vijaynagar 3rd Stage,
Mysore - 570 017.                      ... Petitioner

(By Sri Samarth Prakash, Advocate)

And:

Sri Rahul A.,
S/o Lingaraju A.V.,
Aged about 28 Years,
Residing at Door No.1952,
'Madhuban', 14th Main, B Block,
Near Bapuji High School,
M.C.C. B Block,
Davangere - 577 004.

Also at
Flat No.204,
N.S.R. Brindavan Annex,
3rd Cross, Somasundarpalya,
Bangalore - 560 102.                  ... Respondent

(By Sri Rudrappa P., Advocate)
                                 2


       This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, praying to transfer the case in M.C. No.305/2020
on the file of Family Court, Davangere to Family Court, Mysore in
the interest of equity and justice.

      This Civil Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:

                             ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the wife seeking

for transfer of the proceedings in M.C. No.305/2020 on the

file of Family Court, Davangere to the Family Court, Mysore.

2. The facts as made out in the petition are that the

petitioner and the respondent have entered into

matrimonial relationship on 29.05.2019 and subsequently,

as differences arose, the respondent-husband has instituted

M.C.No.305/2020 before the Family Court at Davangere.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner

that even prior to such proceedings, complaint was given by

the petitioner leading to initiation of proceedings under the

Domestic Violence Act, which is pending before the Court at

Mysore. It is further submitted that as the respondent-

husband is required to attend the said proceedings and also

that the petitioner has no avocation and does not have

independent source of income, traveling from Mysuru,

which is her place of residence to Davangere, which is about

300 Kms., would seriously prejudice her right to fair trial.

In order to attend such proceedings, invariably she would

have any family member to accompany her and in light of

age of her parents, traveling to attend the proceedings at

Davangere would seriously inconvenience her.

4. The learned counsel for respondent on the other

hand has contended that since he is working at Davangere,

traveling from Mysore to Davangere would interfere with his

employment and cause inconvenience to him. Reliance is

also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC

197.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Insofar as the argument advanced by the learned

counsel for the respondent and reliance placed on the

judgment of the Supreme Court, a careful reading of the

judgment of the Apex Court would make out that the court

at Para 4 has observed that each petition should be taken

up on its own merits.

7. In the present case, after having heard both the

counsels in detail and taking note that the petitioner-wife is

depending on her parents and the distance between

Davangere and Mysuru is about 300 Kms., and also taking

note of the submission that the parents of the petitioner are

senior citizens and also that the respondent-husband is

required to attend the proceedings pending in

C.Mis.955/2020, pending before the court of JMFC, Mysore,

case is made out for allowing the petition. The facts as

made out makes out a case of inconvenience amounting to

interference with the right of fair trial, which is taken note

of. Insofar as the ground that there is threat to the

petitioner if he were to attend the proceedings at Mysore if

the matter is transferred, the learned counsel for petitioner

undertakes that they will ensure that whenever the

respondent attends the proceedings at Mysore, there will be

no threat either from the petitioner or any of her family

members. Such an undertaking is taken note of. It is also

observed that the transferee court would take note of

reasonable request for adjournment made by the

respondent in light of the difficulties expressed relating to

his employment in getting leave.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings

pending in M.C.No.305/2020 on the file of Family Court,

Davangere is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court

at Mysore to be disposed off in accordance with law.

Necessary records be transmitted forthwith. Both parties to

cooperate for expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

Needless to state that the proceedings would be resumed

from the stage at which it was before the transferee court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Np/-