Karnataka High Court
Smt. Arpitha. S @ Nischitha vs Sri. Balaji Prabhu. B. V on 4 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
CP No. 101 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL PETITION NO. 101 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARPITHA. S @ NISCHITHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O. SRI BALAJI PRABHU B.V.
RESIDING AT C/O.SRI SRIDHAR N
HOUSE NO.25, SAI KRUPA
4TH CROSS,HEBBAL COLONY,
MYSORE-570016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARMA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. BALAJI PRABHU. B. V.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O. SRI VEERANNA
RESIDING AT BALUVANERALU
Digitally signed by HONNAVALLY HOBLI
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH TIPTUR TALUK-572217
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K N.,ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND TRANSFER
THE CASE M.C. NO. 6/2022 PENDING ON THE COURT OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, TO THE COURT OF
THE HONBLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU AND DISPOSE
OF THE SAME BY JUDGMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
CP No. 101 of 2023
ORDER
This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the
petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.6/2022
pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur
to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Mysuru.
2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
09.02.2017 at Sri Yashaswi Kalayana Mantap, Hunsur
road, Mysuru as per Hindu rites and customs. After the
marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at
her matrimonial house. Out of wedlock a daughter was
born. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties,
the petitioner started living separately with her parents
and minor daughter in Mysuru. Thereafter, the
respondent-husband filed a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights in M.C.No.6/2022 before the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. The petitioner-wife filed a
Crl.Misc.No.3/2023 before the I Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mysuru for maintenance. The case of the
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing at Mysuru,
it would cause great inconvenience and hardship for her to
travel a distance of 142 kms. to Tiptur 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 the parents of the petitioner are aged
persons, she has to take care of them and she has no
other family members or relatives to accompany or assist
her in traveling to Tiptur, which is at a distance of 142
kms., to prosecute the case. Moreover, she does not have
any source of income. Therefore, if the petition is not
transferred, it would cause great inconvenience and
hardship to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel
sought for allowing the petition.
4. When the matter was called in the morning
session, none appeared for the respondent. Even in the
afternoon session also, there is no representation on
behalf of the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the petition papers.
6. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
09.02.2017 as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, the
petitioner was residing with her husband at her
matrimonial house. Out of wedlock one daughter was
born. Since there was differences of opinion cropping up
between the parties, the petitioner started living
separately with her parents and minor daughter.
Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.6/2022 before the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. The petitioner-wife
filed a Crl.Misc.No.3/2023 before the I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Mysuru for maintenance. Since the
petitioner is residing at Mysuru and has to take care of her
aged parents and minor daughter and as she has no other
relatives or family members to accompany or assist her, it
would be difficult for her to travel a distance of 142 kms.
to Tiptur to prosecute the case. This Court in the case
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR
5407 at Paragraph No.15 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 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
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)
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:
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The case in M.C.No.6/2022 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tiptur is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Judge,
Family Court, Mysuru.
iii) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit
the entire records to the transferee court.
NC: 2024:KHC:25315
iv) 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
CM
