Karnataka High Court
Smt. Swarna Gouri vs Sri Vinayak Pujar on 3 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR4561
Author: S. Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
ORDER S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 20.12.2003 at Hubli as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the petitioner that after the marriage, she lived with her husband in his house at Hubli. During her stay in the house of the respondent, parents of the respondent often used to quarrel with her. She was ill-treated and harassed by the other family members of the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent and his family members have been demanding dowry. During the seventh month of her pregnancy, she came to her mother's house at Bangalore for confinement. After the delivery, the respondent never bothered to take back the petitioner and her child to his house. The respondent has abandoned her and the child and has failed to perform his duty as a husband and father of the child. It is contended that the respondent is well settled and has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner and the child. He earns about Rs. 25,000/- per month from his shop at Hubli. Since the respondent failed to take care of the petitioner and her child, she had no other option but to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the II Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court at Bangalore in C. Misc. No. 523/2006 seeking maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent has filed a case against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in M.C. No. 76/2007 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Hubli. The petitioner has produced a copy of the petitions in both the cases, as per Annexures 'A' & 'C respectively. It is contended that the respondent has filed the aforesaid case for restitute of conjugal rights as a counter blast to her petition for maintenance. It is further contended by the petitioner that she is not working anywhere. At present she is residing at Bangalore and it is very difficult for her to appear before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)., at Hubli and engage a Counsel at Hubli. Therefore, she has sought for transfer of M.C. No. 76/2007 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)., Hubli to II Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, where the case filed by her in C.Misc. No. 523/2006 is pending.
2. After service of notice, respondent has entered appearance and has filed his statement of objections. In the statement of objections, he has denied that there was any quarrel between the petitioner and his parents and that petitioner was harassed or ill-treated by his family members. It is further denied that he has failed to maintain her and the child. It is his case that petitioner has withdrawn from his society without there being any sufficient cause. It is his case that he is suffering from chronic epliepsy. He is advised against travelling. He does not have independent source of income. The provision store belongs to his father and he is not receiving any money from his father. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. Learned Counsel for the parties have reiterated the contentions urged in their respective pleadings in their arguments.
4. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the birth of the child is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was a resident of Bangalore before her marriage. After the marriage, she was residisng with the respondent along with her parent-in-laws at Hubli and she came to her mother's house at Bangalore for delivery. It is her specific case that after the delivery, the respondent has failed to take back her and her child to his house at Hubli and that he has failed to maintain them. She is not in a position to maintain herself or her child. Therefore, she had to file a petition for maintenance in a Family Court at Bangalore. It is not in dispute that after the respondent entering appearance in the maintenance petition filed by the petitioner before a Family Court at Bangalore, he has filed M.C. No. 76/2007 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)., at Hubli. He has not filed any application for transfer of the petition filed for maintenance by the petition from Bangalore to Hubli.
5. It is settled that 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. In the present case also, the case of petitioner in her maintenance petition is that the respondent has failed to maintain her. On the other hand, the case of the respondent in both the cases is that she was withdrawn from his company without there being any sufficient cause. The decisions in both the cases are interdependent. Therefore, both the cases should be tried together so as to avoid multiplicity of trial of the same issues and to avoid conflict of decisions.
6. Apart from the above, it is the case of the petitioner that she is not in a position to maintain herself. She is staying with her mother at Bangalore and she is not in a position to travel to Hubli and engage a Counsel at Hubli. Admittedly, the child is about 10 months old. It is also her allegation that she was ill-treated by the members of her husband's family during her stay at Hubli. Besides that she does not have any financial backing to travel to Hubli and contest the matter. She is not employed and does not have any source of income. She is dependent on her mother. The respondent has not filed any application for transfer of the maintenance petition filed by the petitioner at Bangalore to Hubli. No doubt the respondent has taken a plea that he does not have any income of his own and that he is not in a position to travel does not seem to be reasonable. It is well established that whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial matters, 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. If the instant case is considered from this angle, it may not be just and proper to direct the petitioner to appear in M.C. No. 76/2007 at Hubli Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is just and proper to transfer M.C. No. 76/2007 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)., Hubli to II Additional Principal Family Judge, Bangalore, wherein C. Misc. No. 523/2006 filed by her is pending.
7. In the result, Writ Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. I direct the transfer of M.C. No. 76/2007 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)., at Hubli to II Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. I further direct the Family Court at Bangalore to club both the cases, conduct a joint trial and pass a common order. No costs.