Smt. Pallavi B K vs Sri. Puttaswamy C
2022 Latest Caselaw 2865 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

           CIVIL PETITION No.360 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SMT.PALLAVI B.K.
W/O PUTTASWAMY.C.,
D/O KUMAR B.L.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT BEECHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.              ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI PUTTASWAMY.C.,
S/O CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.248, A/5,
2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS,
GOKULA 1ST STAGE,
MATTIKERE 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 054.                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETHAN DESAI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.C.NO.1179/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE IN THE COURT
                                 2




OF 1ST ADDITIONAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU AND TRANSFER THE ABOVE CASE FROM 1ST
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
MANDYA.

     THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Shri Sachin on behalf of

the Shri Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/

wife and also Shri Chethan Desai, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent/husband along with

Shri.Chandra Naik.T.

2. Though this matter is listed for admission,

with the consent of both the learned counsel, the matter

is taken up for final disposal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that she

got married to the respondent on 04.11.2016 at "Sri

Vishwanatha Convention Hall, Manjunatha Nagar,

Jalamangala Road, Ramanagara Town and District as

per the Hindu customs, rights and ceremonies.

Thereafter, without any reasons, the respondent has

abstained himself from performing conjugal rights. It is

also submitted that from the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent, there is a male child born

on 07.12.2017. Due to the strain in relationship between

the wife and husband, a petition came to be filed by the

respondent/husband in M.C.No.1179 of 2019 before the

1st Additional Family Court, Bengaluru for divorce

against the petitioner/wife. Thereafter, as a counter

blast, the petitioner/wife preferred a petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution

of conjugal rights from her husband, the respondent

herein in M.C.No.120 of 2019, which is pending on the

file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya.

The petitioner has also filed a complaint under Section

12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 in Crl.Misc.No.346 of 2019, which is pending on

the file of J.M.F.C. Court, Mandya. In view of the fact

that the divorce petition filed by the

respondent/husband is pending before the 1st Additional

Family Court, Bengaluru and the restitution of conjugal

rights petition filed by the wife is pending before the

Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya along with

another proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.346 of 2019 under

the Domestic Violence Act before the J.M.F.C. Court,

Mandya, the petitioner/wife has preferred this petition

seeking transfer of the case in M.C.No.1179 of 2019

pending on the file of the 1st Additional Family Court,

Bengaluru to be transferred to the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Mandya, in order to avoid any

divergent opinion or judgment expressed by the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner

Shri.Sachin contends that the petition filed by the

husband at Bengaluru is at a distance of 165 Kms. from

the native place of the petitioner, so also, it is the

contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is

un-employed and facing financial problem and it is

difficult for her to travel from Beechanahalli, Mandya to

Bengaluru to defend the matrimonial proceedings filed

by her husband for divorce. He also contends that there

is a threat to the life of the petitioner if she travels to

Bengaluru from the hands of the respondent/husband.

Therefore, she has filed the present petition and prays

for transfer of this matrimonial case from Bengaluru to

the Family Court at Mandya.

5. Learned counsel, Shri Chethan Desai

appearing along with Shri Chandra Naik.T. contends that

the petition filed by the respondent/husband for divorce

at Bengaluru has already reached the stage of evidence

of the respondent, namely, the petitioner herein. He

further contends that the petitioner herein has

participated by filing statement of objections before the

Family Court at Bengaluru and has also filed an

application seeking interim maintenance before the

Court at Mandya wherein interim maintenance of

Rs.8,000/- per month came to be awarded by the Senior

Civil Judge, Mandya. He further contends that the said

amount of Rs.8,000/- is being paid regularly to the

petitioner/wife and for the minor child.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri

Chethan Desai fairly submits that he has no objection

with regard to transfer of the matter pending before the

Family Court at Bengaluru to the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge at Mandya to be tried along with

M.C.No.120 of 2019 wherein the petitioner herein has

instituted petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contends

that the intention of the petitioner is to protract and

drag on the proceedings and hence, she has filed this

petition. However, he does not want to precipitate the

matter on legalities and technicalities and he is

interested in disposal of the matter either before the

Family Court at Bengaluru or before the Court of

Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mandya. Now, that the

petitioner is seeking transfer of the case to the Court of

Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mandya. He would

willingly participate in the proceedings before the Court

of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mandya. However,

he contends that the petitioner should not further

protract the proceedings and continue with the

proceedings of the divorce petition from the stage where

it has been halted, i.e., evidence of the respondent. He

contends that the cross-examination of PW-1, namely,

the respondent, Puttaswamy.C. has been taken as 'nil'

and case has been posted for evidence of the

respondent.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for

petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and

considering the fact that petitions having been instituted

by the wife and the husband for restitution as well as

divorce, the point for consideration before this court

would be the necessity of transfer of the petition and the

constraints that are going to be encountered by the

petitioner/wife from traveling to Bengaluru from Mandya

to attend the matter at Bengaluru. It is seen that the

distance from Beechanahalli to Bengaluru is 165 Kms

and thereafter, it is alleged by the petitioner-wife that

she has a threat from the respondent/husband and

hence, she cannot travel to Bengaluru to attend the

proceedings instituted by the husband, so also, it is seen

that the petitioner/wife has instituted a petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution

of conjugal rights and also she has filed a complaint

under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking

certain reliefs against the respondent/husband.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the above

case and the pendancy of two petitions filed by the wife

at Mandya, namely, the restitution of conjugal rights,

petition and also complaint under the Domestic Violence

Act and the ground urged by the petitioner/wife with

regard to her constraints in traveling to Bengaluru from

Beechanahalli, Mandya and having a minor child, I deem

it appropriate that it would be in the interest of the

petitioner/wife that the matrimonial proceedings filed by

the respondent/ husband in M.C.No.1179 of 2019

pending on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, Family

Court, Bengaluru to be transferred to the Court of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya to be tried along

with M.C.No.120 of 2019. It is also seen that no

hardship or inconvenience would be caused to the

respondent/husband from traveling from Bengaluru

Mandya whereas, greater hardship and inconvenience

would be caused to the petitioner/wife in traveling from

Beechanahalli, Mandya to Bengaluru. In view of the

submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent/husband having consented, for transfer of

the petition from Bengaluru to Mandya, I deem it

appropriate to allow this petition in the interest of the

parties. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed;

ii) The matrimonial proceedings in M.C.No.1179

of 2019 pending on the file of 1st Additional Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby directed to be

transferred to the Court of the Principal Senior

Civil Judge at Mandya to be tried along with

M.C.No.120 of 2019;

iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-

operate with the Court at Mandya for disposal of the

matrimonial proceedings filed by the respondent/

husband seeking for divorce and also the restitution

of conjugal rights petition filed against the

respondent/husband without further dragging on the

proceedings;

iv) The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at

Mandya shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously

as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH