Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shabreen Banu vs Athik Jan M .P on 3 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
CP No. 205 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL PETITION NO. 205 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHABREEN BANU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
W/O ATHIK JAN M P
D/O BUDEN SAB
RETIRED FOREST OFFICER
HOUSEWIFE
R/A S S LAYOUTHAMSINI HOTEL BACK SIDE
DAVANAGERE-577001
PRESENT ADDRESS
SMT SHABREEN BANU
W/O ATHIK JAN M P
D/O BUDEN SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A HOUSEWIFE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O NO.3930, SHAMNOOR MAIN ROAD
KARNATAKA BEHIND BHOOSNUR PRINTERS
S S LAYOUT, A BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
ATHIK JAN M .P.
S/O PYAREJAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
CP No. 205 of 2023
R/A VIJAYANAGARA BADAVANE
KODICAMP, TARIKERE TOWN
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577228
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S V/O
DATED: 03.07.2024)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO1
TRANSFER THE O.S.NO. 82/2023 ON THE FILE HONBLE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALUR
TO THE FILE OF HONBLE FAMILY COURT, AT
DAVANAGERE.2 PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE
JUDGMENT OR ORDERS/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the
petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of O.S.No.82/2023
pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC,
Tarikere to the Family Court, Davanagere.
2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
16.08.2020 at Ocean Park Anekonda Party Hall in
Davanagere as per customs prevailed in their community.
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her
husband at her matrimonial house. As matrimonial
disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started
living separately with her parents in Davanagere. The
petitioner also lodged a complaint against the respondent
under Sections 323, 354 498A, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a suit
in O.S.No.82/2023 before the Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC Tarikere for restitution of conjugal rights. The case of
the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in
Davanagere, it would cause great inconvenience and
hardship for her to travel a distance of 120 kms to
Tarikere to prosecute the case. Hence, she filed the
present petition seeking for transfer of case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended
that after the matrimonial dispute arose between the
parties, the petitioner is residing with her parents in
Davanagere. She also lodged a complaint against the
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
respondent under Sections 323, 354 498A, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. The parents of the petitioner are
aged persons and she has no other relatives or family
members to assist her in traveling to Tarikere, which is at
a distance of 120 Kms, to prosecute the suit filed by the
respondent-husband in O.S.No.82/2023 before the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Tarikere. Moreover, she
does not have any source of income. Therefore, if the suit
is not transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and
hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel
sought for allowing the petition.
4. The respondent-husband is served and
unrepresented.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused
the petition papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally
wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
solemnized on 16.08.2020 at Ocean Park Anekonda Party
Hall in Davanagere as per customs prevailed in their
community. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing
with her husband at her matrimonial house. As
matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the
petitioner started living separately with her parents in
Davanagere. The petitioner also lodged a complaint
against the respondent under Sections 323, 354 498A,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, the
respondent-husband filed a suit in O.S.No.82/2023 before
the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Tarikere for restitution
of conjugal rights. Since the petitioner is residing in
Davanagere, it would cause great inconvenience and
hardship for her to travel a distance of 120 kms to
Tarikere to prosecute the case.
7. This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri
Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 at Paragraph
No.15 has held as hereunder:
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
"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 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
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar
MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Therefore, 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. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The case in O.S.No.82/2023 pending on the file of
the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tarikere is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court,
Davanagere.
c) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit
the entire records to the transferee court.
NC: 2024:KHC:24929
d) The transferee Court after hearing the parties is
directed to dispose of the said case as expeditiously
as possible and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
