Karnataka High Court
Rodrick L Sumanth S/O. Bhaskar Sumanth vs Thanvi Kumar W/O. Rodrick I Sumanath on 29 October, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CIVIL PETITION NO.100171 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
RODRICK L. SUMANATH
S/O BHASKAR SUMANTH
AGE: ABAOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O: NO.39, SANSKRUTI PALMS,
MANDOLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITIN R. BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THANVI KUMAR
W/O RODRICK, L. SUMANTH
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER,
R/O: NO.86, 24TH CROSS,
6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560082.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BEAULA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW M.C. NO.
4822/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE
2
COURT OF FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE OF LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Nitin R.Bolabandi., learned counsel for petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.
2. The facts are quite simple and are stated as under:
It is stated that the Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 14.08.2019 as per Christian tradition and Customs at Methodist Central Church, Belagavi. They lived blissfully for some time. Due to difference of opinion and misunderstanding, the respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking divorce before the Principal/Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru in M.C.No.4822/2020.
Aggrieved by the institution of the petition, the petitioner husband has filed this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of case in 3 M.C.No.4822/2020 from the Court of Principal/Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru to the Family Court, Belagavi.
3. Sri.Nitin R.Bolabandi., learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Belagavi and his wife has filed the petition for divorce before the Family Court at Bengaluru.
Next, he submitted that the petitioner met with a motor accident at Goa and had suffered brain stroke and partially paralyzed and he is dependent on his old aged parents for daily chores and mobility. It is also submitted this fact is well known to the respondent and despite being aware of the partial paralysis of the petitioner, the respondent has intentionally chosen to file a divorce petition in Bengaluru which is nothing short of a harassment being caused to the petitioner.
A further submission is made that it would be very difficult and inconvenient for the petitioner to go to Bengaluru as and when the case is posted.
4
It is also submitted that he is solely depending on his old aged parents for daily chores and mobility.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that petitioner is a helpless man and he is not in a position to travel to Bengaluru and contest the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner would have to travel 500 km from his place of residence i.e., Belagavi to that of Bengaluru where the petition is filed.
Lastly, he submitted that the grounds urged for transfer may be taken into consideration and the case may be transferred from the Family Court, Bengaluru to Family Court, Belagavi.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner and perused the petition paper with care.
5. The short question which would arise for consideration is whether the case in M.C.No.4822/2020 pending on the file of Principal/Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru be transferred to the Family Court, Belagavi? 5
It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.08.2019 as per Christian tradition and Customs at Methodist Central Church, Belagavi. They lived blissfully for some time. Due to difference of opinion and misunderstanding, respondent was constrained to live apart from her husband - petitioner.
Due to conflicts and misunderstandings, parties have chosen to litigate the issues before the Court of Law. The respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.4822/2020 wherein she has sought the aid of the Court seeking divorce. She has chosen the Forum of Family Court at Bengaluru. But, the husband - petitioner has sought for transfer of the case.
The question being whether there is some other Forum which is appropriate for the trial of the action, according to petitioner, the Court at Belagavi is the appropriate Forum to litigate the dispute. The grounds taken by husband in the transfer petition are;
• Travel is difficult being a paralyzed person, 6 • Expenses required for travel, • Inconvenience to travel, Hence, this petition under Section 24 of CPC. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
"24 GENERAL POWER OF TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage, -
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and
(i) try or dispose of the same; or
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or 7
(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn."
The Section confers a general power to transfer, withdraw and transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage on the application of party. The purpose of Section 24 of CPC is merely to confer discretionary power. A Court acting under Section 24 of CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case.
It would be relevant to note that the basic principle governing the granting of a petition under Section 24 of CPC is that the petition is not to be dealt with in a light hearted manner and transfer of a case from one Court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason that such transfer of a case from one Judge to another in effect casts a doubt on the integrity, competence, and reputation of the concerned Judge. Unless and until a sufficiently cogent ground is disclosed, transfer should not be allowed as a matter of course.
8
For the purpose of such transfer, balance of convenience of the parties should be considered.
Sri.Nitin R.Bolabandi., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting his argument strenuously urged that the petitioner has suffered brain stroke and he is partially paralyzed. Hence, he cannot travel to Bengaluru and attend the case.
I have considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
No doubt, in matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife is relevant consideration. But that analogy is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the following reasons:
1. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that he has suffered a brain stroke and he is partially paralyzed.
2. The petitioner has pleaded that he is dependent on his old aged parents for daily chores and mobility.
3. The petitioner has further pleaded that he would have to travel 500 km from his place of residence 9 i.e., Belagavi to that of Bengaluru where the petition is filed.
4. Lastly, it also pleaded that because of paralysis, he cannot travel and it would be convenient for him to attend the case at Belagavi.
Taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for this Court to direct him to attend the proceedings at Bengaluru Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is just and proper to transfer the M.C.No.4822/2020 pending on the file of Principal/Additional Family Judge at Bengaluru, to the Court of Family Court, Belagavi.
In the result, the Civil Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.
This Court directs to transfer M.C.No.4822/2020, pending on the file of Principal /Additional Family Judge at Bengaluru, to the Court of Family Court, Belagavi.
10
If video conferencing provision is available, the respondent is at liberty to appear through video conferencing.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN