Smt Bhagyashree vs Sunil
2024 Latest Caselaw 5838 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5838 Kant
Judgement Date : 27 February, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Smt Bhagyashree vs Sunil on 27 February, 2024

Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7961
                                                         CP No.433 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                CIVIL PETITION NO.433 OF 2022
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. BHAGYASHREE
                         WIFE OF SUNIL
                         D/O GUDDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
                         HOUSE WIFE
                         R/AT WARD NO.11, MULLAN KERI
Digitally signed         BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
by VIJAYA P              HAVERI.
Location: HIGH                                                 ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.,)
                   AND:

                   1.    SUNIL
                         S/O LAKSHMANA
                         AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                         AGRICULTURIST
                         R/OF. KODURU VILLAGE
                         HOSANAGARA TALUK
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577418.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                   (RESPONDENT SERVED)
                        THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC,
                   PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO WITHDRAWAL AND
                   TRANSFER OF THE PETITION IN M.C.NO.35/2022 ON THE FILE
                   OF HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSANAGARA
                   TO THE FILE OF HONBLE FAMILY COURT AT HAVERI PASS
                   SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT OR ORDER/S AS THIS
                   HONBLE    COURT    DEEMS    FIT   UNDER   FACTS   AND
                   CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
                   AND EQUITY.
                                 -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:7961
                                          CP No.433 of 2022




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

                           ORDER

Petitioner - Wife has sought for withdrawal of the

proceedings in M.C.No. 35/2022 pending on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara, and has sought

for the same to be transferred to the Family Court at

Haveri.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the

petitioner and respondent had entered into a matrimonial

relationship on 02.04.2012 and from within the wedlock,

they have a boy child who is aged about 8 years as on

date. It is submitted that the petitioner is not employed

and is dependent upon her parents and that she is

presently residing at Haveri and if she were to travel to

attend the proceedings at the Court at Hosanagara,

petitioner has to travel about 150 Kms. It is further

submitted that travelling on every date of hearing would

also lead to interference with the educational interest of

the son.

NC: 2024:KHC:7961

3. Taking note of the submission of inconvenience

involved in travelling 150 Kms. from Haveri to Hosanagara

and that the petitioner has a child aged about 8 years, the

assertion that travelling to attend the proceedings would

interfere with the educational interest of the child, requires

acceptance.

4. This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri

Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 has held as

hereunder:

"The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is the wife's

NC: 2024:KHC:7961

convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common question of fact and law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions (See Smt.NandaKishori v. S.B.Shiua Prakash AIR 1993 Kar 87, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. MANU/SC/0936/2001:AIR 2002 SC 396 and Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Taking note of the inconvenience as made out

by the petitioner and the law laid down in the case of

Smt.M.V.Rekha (supra), which provides that convenience

of the wife is an aspect that is to be taken note of while

considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be

allowed.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings in

M.C.No. 35/2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara, is withdrawn and the same

NC: 2024:KHC:7961

is transferred to the Family Court at Haveri. The records