Karnataka High Court
Shweta Kumari W/O Ravikumar vs Ravikumar S/O T.S. Soloman on 13 January, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CIVIL PETITION No.200045/2021
BETWEEN:
SHWETA KUMARI W/O RAVIKUMAR
D/O: SWAMIDAS
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: FDC, POSTAL ASSISTANCE
R/O; KURDI VILLAGE TQ: MANVI,
NOW SERVING AT RAJAJI NAGAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHIMASHANKAR S/O BASANNA,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAVIKUMAR S/O T. S. SOLOMAN
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: LECTURER AT
SHARANABASAVESHWAR COLLEGE, KALABURAGI.
R/O: H.NO.2-909/16/28/2 BEHIND
ASIAN MALL KUVEMPUR NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 102
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AND WITHDRAWN THE
MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.281/2021 FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 10,12, 14, 19 AND 47 OF THE DIVORCE ACT,
1869 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT KALABURAGI AND TO TRANSFER THE
SAME TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to transfer
M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of Principal Judge Family
Court, at Kalaburagi to the Principal Judge, Family Court at
Bengaluru.
02. The petitioner has contended that she is the
wife of respondent. However, respondent has prevented
her from joining the matrimonial home. She is working as
FDC - Postal Assistance at Rajajinagar Head Post Office,
Bengaluru and residing at a Paying Guest Accommodation
at Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru. The respondent is working at
Lecturer at Sharanabasaveshwar College, Kalaburagi. The
respondent has filed M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of
Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi seeking
dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Being an
employee of Postal Department and residing at Bengaluru,
she is unable to travel alone all the way to Kalaburagi to
attend the said case. Her father is suffering from severe
health issues and he cannot accompany her. There is
threat to her life by the respondent. In the event of the
case being transferred, the comparative inconvenience to
the respondent would be less to travel to Bengaluru to
attend the Court proceedings. Accordingly, she prayed to
allow the petition.
03. The respondent has appeared through counsel
and filed objections, contending that the petitioner has
committed fraud on him by concealing the fact that she
was involved in illicit relationship with one Madhu Kadapa
of Tenali Town, Andhra Pradesh. The family of the
petitioner had committed murder of the said Madhu
Kadapa. In the said case i.e., S.C.No.108/2017 on the file
of I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, the petitioner is
accused No.5. She and other accused were prosecuted in
the said case. This fact was concealed from him. After
coming to know about the same, when the respondent
questioned the petitioner, she refused to join the
matrimonial home and to perform the marital obligations.
Therefore, he has filed M.C.No.281/2021 seeking
declaration of their marriage as invalid and unenforceable.
Though the respondent admits that the petitioner is
employed in Postal Department and working at Rajajinagar
Head Post Office, Bengaluru, he has disputed that her
father is suffering from ill-health and unable to accompany
her and that there is threat to her life and as such the
petitioner is unable to travel alone to attend the Court
proceedings at Kalaburagi.
04. The respondent has also denied that there is
threat to the life of the petitioner from him. All the family
members of the petitioner are employed and drawing
handsome salary. The respondent is working as a Lecturer
on part-time basis at Sharanabasaveshwar College,
Kalaburagi. He is the only person to take care of his aged
parents out of his meager income. Under the garb of
getting the petition transferred to Bengaluru, the petitioner
has planned to eliminate the respondent and also to
initiate multiple proceedings against him and prays to
dismiss the petition.
05. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
06. As evident from the copy of the petition in
M.C.No.281/2021, the marriage of the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2021 at Christ
Methodist Central Church, Kalaburagi. In the petition filed
under Sections 10, 12, 14, 19 and 47 of the Indian Divorce
Act, 1869, the respondent has alleged that before the
marriage, the petitioner had illicit relationship with one
Madhu Kadapa of Tenali Town, Andhra Pradesh and when
he insisted her to marry him, she along with her family
members and others had committed his murder and burnt
his dead body. In this regard she and others were
prosecuted in S.C.No.108/2017 on the file of I Additional
Sessions Judge, Raichur and ultimately they were
acquitted. However, suppressing these facts, the petitioner
has entered into marriage with him and he sought for
dissolution of marriage.
07. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of Rajaji
Nagar, Bengaluru. She is working as FDC - Postal
Assistance at Rajajinagar Head Post Office at Bengaluru.
The respondent is employed as Lecturer at
Sharanabasaveshwar College, Kalaburagi. Ofcourse, it is
inconvenient to travel from Kalaburagi to Bengaluru and
vice-versa to both the petitioner and the respondent.
However, the petitioner being a woman, the comparative
hardship would be more to her and she may not be in a
position to travel alone such a long distance about 600
kms., which is invariably to be traveled during night.
08. In the judgments relied upon by the petitoner
reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 in the matter of Sumita
Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another and (2005) 12
SCC 237 in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs.
Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that in this type of matrimonial cases the
inconvenience of wife has to be preferred over the
inconvenience of the husband, especially when the
litigation has been initiated by the husband.
09. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and relying upon above two decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that
the inconvenience that would be caused to the petitioner is
more, when compared to that of the respondent.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in
the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
I. The petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of the
Civil Procedure is allowed.
II. The M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of Principal Judge
Family Court, Kalaburagi filed by the respondent is
withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
III. The Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru is
directed to take the matter on record and proceed in
accordance with law, either allotting it to his file or
making it over to the other family court, as per
routine.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
