Karnataka High Court
Soumyashree D/O Late Prahalad M ... vs Narshima Parvatikar S/O Raghavendra ... on 2 March, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CIVIL PETITION NO.200043/2017
BETWEEN:
SOUMYASHREE D/O.
LATE PRAHALAD.M.DESHPANDE,
PLOT NO.181, "MARTHANANDA KRUPA",
JADHAV LAYOUT, CHANDRABHAGA NAGAR,
BIDDAPUR COLONY, KALABURAGI - 585103.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ARUNA.P.CHOWAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NARSHIMA PARVATIKAR
S/O. RAGHAVENDRA RAO PARVATIKAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR,
R/O.NO.29, RAKMA NIVAS,
VINAYAKA TEMPLE ROAD,
HANUMANGIRI NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560061.
... RESPONDENT
(SRI.NARSIMHA - SERVED)
2
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE
MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.2917/2017 PENDING
BEFORE THE VTH ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY
COURT AT BANGALORE IN M.C.NO.2917/2017 TO
THE FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/wife filed the present civil petition under Section 24 of CPC to transfer the matrimonial case in M.C.No.2917/2017 on the file of Principal Family Court Judge, Bangalore to the Family Court at Kalaburagi.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the she was Assistant Professor in physics at institution of APS Educational Trust, Somanahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore-500082. Respondent has filed the petition under M.C.No.2917/2017 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Vth Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court at Bangalore. The 3 Petitioner intends to contest the petition placing the real fact which have been made the petitioner to suffer at the hands of the respondent during her short stay with him at Bangalore. The petitioner residing with her widow mother at Kalaburagi since 2011, when respondent driven out her from matrimonial home.
3. It was further contended that after the marriage, the petitioner joined respondent and lived for a short period of about nine months. The petitioner conceived for delivery, she was brought by the respondent to Kalaburagi and she joined her mother and residing at Kalaburagi. The petitioner has given birth to a son by name Avanish on 10.12.2011. Since, birth of child the petitioner has been living in her parental home and the respondent never truly intended to take back the petitioner and the child. She further contended that in order to harass the petitioner, the respondent-husband has filed M.C.No.2917/2017 at Bangalore.
4
4. According to the petitioner, she is not in a position to attend the Court on every date of hearing at Bangalore from Kalaburagi, which is about 600 Kms. with minor child and she is suffering from physically and mentally. She being part time Teacher in private institution and getting very small salary. She has joined widow mother at Kalaburagi and mother of petitioner unable to provide travelling and litigation expenses if petitioner is required to attend the Court on every date of hearing at Bangalore. In fact she also filed a Cr.Misc. under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at Kalaburagi. If the matter is transferred from Bangalore to Kalaburagi, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Therefore, she has filed this petition for transfer of M.C.No.2917/ 2017 from Bangalore to Kalaburagi.
5. Respondent served, but un-represented. 5
6. Sri.Aruna.P.Chowan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has contended that the petitioner has a minor child and therefore, she is unable to attend the Court at Bangalore on all the dates of hearing. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2010 at Kalaburagi. It is also not in dispute that out of their wedlock, petitioner has given birth to child by name Avanish on 10.12.2011. The petitioner is residing with her widow mother at Kalaburagi. It is specific case of the petitioner that she has no means for litigation and travel expenses to attend every date of hearing from Kalaburagi to Bangalore Court which is at distance about 600 kms. She is not in a position to attend the 6 Court at Bangalore with minor child on every date of hearing. The allegations made in civil petition has not been contravened by respondent, as he was served, un- represented. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into while passing the orders under Section 24 of Code of Civil procedure.
8. This Court while considering the petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, in the case of Seema Alias Preeti vs Promod Chandrakant Vernekar, reported in 2004(4) Kar.L.J.572, relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, reported in AIR 2002 S.C. 396, has held that while considering the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into while passing the orders under Section 24 of Code of Civil procedure.
7
9. For the reasons stated above, the civil petition is allowed. M.C.No.2917/2017 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court at Bangalore is ordered to be transfer to the Court of Family Court at Kalaburagi for adjudication of the matter between the parties on merits in accordance with law. The Family Court, Kalaburagi is directed to decide the petition in M.C.No.2917/2017 as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ