Karnataka High Court
Shweta Kumari W/O Ravikumar vs Ravikumar S/O T.S. Soloman on 13 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CIVIL PETITION No.200045/2021
BETWEEN:
SHWETA KUMARI W/O RAVIKUMAR
D/O: SWAMIDAS
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: FDC, POSTAL ASSISTANCE
R/O; KURDI VILLAGE TQ: MANVI,
NOW SERVING AT RAJAJI NAGAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHIMASHANKAR S/O BASANNA,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAVIKUMAR S/O T. S. SOLOMAN
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: LECTURER AT
SHARANABASAVESHWAR COLLEGE, KALABURAGI.
R/O: H.NO.2-909/16/28/2 BEHIND
ASIAN MALL KUVEMPUR NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 102
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AND WITHDRAWN THE
MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.281/2021 FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 10,12, 14, 19 AND 47 OF THE DIVORCE ACT,
1869 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT KALABURAGI AND TO TRANSFER THE
SAME TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to transfer M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, at Kalaburagi to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.
3
02. The petitioner has contended that she is the wife of respondent. However, respondent has prevented her from joining the matrimonial home. She is working as FDC - Postal Assistance at Rajajinagar Head Post Office, Bengaluru and residing at a Paying Guest Accommodation at Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru. The respondent is working at Lecturer at Sharanabasaveshwar College, Kalaburagi. The respondent has filed M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi seeking dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Being an employee of Postal Department and residing at Bengaluru, she is unable to travel alone all the way to Kalaburagi to attend the said case. Her father is suffering from severe health issues and he cannot accompany her. There is threat to her life by the respondent. In the event of the case being transferred, the comparative inconvenience to the respondent would be less to travel to Bengaluru to attend the Court proceedings. Accordingly, she prayed to allow the petition.
4
03. The respondent has appeared through counsel and filed objections, contending that the petitioner has committed fraud on him by concealing the fact that she was involved in illicit relationship with one Madhu Kadapa of Tenali Town, Andhra Pradesh. The family of the petitioner had committed murder of the said Madhu Kadapa. In the said case i.e., S.C.No.108/2017 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, the petitioner is accused No.5. She and other accused were prosecuted in the said case. This fact was concealed from him. After coming to know about the same, when the respondent questioned the petitioner, she refused to join the matrimonial home and to perform the marital obligations. Therefore, he has filed M.C.No.281/2021 seeking declaration of their marriage as invalid and unenforceable. Though the respondent admits that the petitioner is employed in Postal Department and working at Rajajinagar Head Post Office, Bengaluru, he has disputed that her father is suffering from ill-health and unable to accompany her and that there is threat to her life and as such the 5 petitioner is unable to travel alone to attend the Court proceedings at Kalaburagi.
04. The respondent has also denied that there is threat to the life of the petitioner from him. All the family members of the petitioner are employed and drawing handsome salary. The respondent is working as a Lecturer on part-time basis at Sharanabasaveshwar College, Kalaburagi. He is the only person to take care of his aged parents out of his meager income. Under the garb of getting the petition transferred to Bengaluru, the petitioner has planned to eliminate the respondent and also to initiate multiple proceedings against him and prays to dismiss the petition.
05. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
06. As evident from the copy of the petition in M.C.No.281/2021, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2021 at Christ Methodist Central Church, Kalaburagi. In the petition filed 6 under Sections 10, 12, 14, 19 and 47 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the respondent has alleged that before the marriage, the petitioner had illicit relationship with one Madhu Kadapa of Tenali Town, Andhra Pradesh and when he insisted her to marry him, she along with her family members and others had committed his murder and burnt his dead body. In this regard she and others were prosecuted in S.C.No.108/2017 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur and ultimately they were acquitted. However, suppressing these facts, the petitioner has entered into marriage with him and he sought for dissolution of marriage.
07. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru. She is working as FDC - Postal Assistance at Rajajinagar Head Post Office at Bengaluru. The respondent is employed as Lecturer at Sharanabasaveshwar College, Kalaburagi. Ofcourse, it is inconvenient to travel from Kalaburagi to Bengaluru and vice-versa to both the petitioner and the respondent. 7 However, the petitioner being a woman, the comparative hardship would be more to her and she may not be in a position to travel alone such a long distance about 600 kms., which is invariably to be traveled during night.
08. In the judgments relied upon by the petitoner reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 in the matter of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another and (2005) 12 SCC 237 in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in this type of matrimonial cases the inconvenience of wife has to be preferred over the inconvenience of the husband, especially when the litigation has been initiated by the husband.
09. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon above two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the inconvenience that would be caused to the petitioner is more, when compared to that of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; 8
ORDER I. The petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is allowed.
II. The M.C.No.281/2021 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Kalaburagi filed by the respondent is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. III. The Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to take the matter on record and proceed in accordance with law, either allotting it to his file or making it over to the other family court, as per routine.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ