Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anuradha Arani vs Sri. Arani Chandrashekar @ Sekhar on 30 May, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18212
CP No. 468 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL PETITION NO. 468 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANURADHA ARANI
W/O SRI ARANI CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO G3, RR SMART HOUSES
CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD
BEERESHWARA NAGAR
JP NAGAR 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU 560062
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. ARANI CHANDRASHEKAR @ SEKHAR
S/O LATE ARANI SANJEEVA RAO
Digitally AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
signed by
HEMALATHA R/AT HOUSE NO 34
A TREASURY LAYOUT
Location: High BEHIND CHRIST PUBLIC SCHOOL
Court of KERGALLI, MYSURU 26
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO KINDLY ORDER THE TRANSFER OF THE
PETITION IN M.C.NO.698/2023 PRESENTLY PENDING FOR
ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF THE
PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU TO THE COURT OF
THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, NYAYA DEGULA,
BENGALURU, FOR CONVENIENT ADJUDICATION AND PASS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18212
CP No. 468 of 2023
SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL ADMISSION,
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 M.C.No.698/2023 pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to the Principal Family Judge, Nyaya Degula, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband and their marriage was solemnized on 14.06.1997 at Gujarathi Samajawadi Deshbandu Ward, Maharashtra as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. After 25 years of marriage, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her son and daughter in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent- husband filed a M.C. petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in -3- NC: 2024:KHC:18212 CP No. 468 of 2023 M.C.No.698/2023 before the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing in Bengaluru, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of 175 kms to Mysuru to prosecute the case filed by the respondent. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner is living with her daughter and son in Bengaluru. She is working in private company and she would not get any leave to travel to Mysuru to prosecuting the case. Since the respondent-husband is not working and if the petition is transferred to Bengaluru, it would not get any inconvenience to the respondent. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that respondent is residing with her age old parents. Since the petitioner is a Graduate, she can travel -4- NC: 2024:KHC:18212 CP No. 468 of 2023 to Mysuru from Bengaluru and it would not get any inconvenience to the petitioner for prosecuting the case. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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 solemnized on 14.06.1997 at Gujarathi Samajawadi Deshbandu Ward, Maharashtra as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house for more than 25 years. Thereafter, as matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started living separately with her son and daughter in Bengaluru and she is working in Private company in Bengaluru. Since the respondent-husband filed a M.C. petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in M.C.No.698/2023 before the file of II Additional -5- NC: 2024:KHC:18212 CP No. 468 of 2023 Principal Judge, Family Court in Mysuru, it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a distance of 175 kms to Mysuru to prosecute the case filed by the respondent-husband.
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:
"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 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:18212 CP No. 468 of 2023 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)
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: -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:18212 CP No. 468 of 2023 ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The case in M.C.No.698/2023 pending on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru is hereby withdrawn and the same is transferred to the Principal Family Judge, Nyaya Degula, Bengaluru.
c) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee Court.
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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10