Karnataka High Court
Smt R Hema vs Sri H R Sharath on 18 September, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CIVIL PETITION No.186/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. HEMA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
W/O H. R. SHARATH,
D/O N. RAMAKRISHNA,
NO 17, H S K, HUTTHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATHI - 577301.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH T. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI H. R. SHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O H. M. RAMEGOWDA,
NO 721, 1ST B MAIN ROAD,
VIDYANAGARA,
TURUVEKERE TOWN - 572227.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
......
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF CPC, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION IN MC
NO. 20/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TURUVEKERE AND TRANSFER
THE SAME TO THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR. DN.), BHADRAVATHI,
TO BE TRIED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.
DN.), BHADRAVATHI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
2
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present Civil Petition is filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to transfer M.C.No.20/2016 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Shivamogga.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 06.08.2012 at Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at the expenditure of the petitioner's parents. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent led their marital life at Turuvekere. Within five months of marriage, the respondent and his family members started pressurizing the petitioner to get half of the terminal benefits of her father who eventually retired 3 from service. Since the petitioner did not heed to the said demand, respondent and his family members tortured the petitioner. Unable to bear the torture, on 11.02.2013 petitioner consumed poison and was hospitalized.
3. It is further stated that during the stay with the respondent, petitioner was pushed from stairs and her back was injured. She took treatment at her paternal house at Bhadravati. Since she was under treatment for back pain, the respondent filed M.C No.28/2014 on 03.05.2014 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere. Thereafter, on 26.04.2016 respondent filed M.C.No.20/2016 under Section 13(1)(i)(a)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Turuvekere, seeking a decree of divorce and to annul the marriage. It is further stated that the petitioner filed a complaint 4 before Santhwana Mahila Sahayavani Kendra on 03.06.2016. Despite of notice from the said organization, respondent and his family members did not care to respond and the said organization directed the jurisdictional police for further needful action.
4. In pursuance of the same, a complaint was registered before the New Town Police Station, Bhadravathi, vide Crime No.88/2016 on 08.06.2016 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Sections 498A, 149, 506, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that due to continuous threat from the respondent/ husband, it is difficult for the petitioner/wife to attend the case at Turuvekere on every date of hearing. The distance between Turuvekere and Bhadravathi is about 150 kms. The respondent and her relatives are powerful in the locality and capable of doing anything to 5 the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is filed for the relief sought for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri Venkatesh T.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that there is life threat to the petitioner if she comes to Turuvekere to attend the Court and it is difficult for her to travel a distance of 150 kms from Bhadravathi to Turuvekere on every date of hearing. Therefore, he sought to transfer M.C.No. 20/2016 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, to any place which is near to both the parties.
7. Sri Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the M.C. petition may be 6 transferred to any Court which is near and convenient to both the parties.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties is placed on record.
9. This Court, in the case of Suhashini vs. S.B. Mahendra Kumar reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2804 at paragraph 8 held as under:
"8. In the case of Seema alias Preeti vs. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar, (2004(4) KLJ 572) this Court, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) has held that while considering the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into and accordingly, this Court has allowed the transfer petition filed by the wife".7
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C.No.20/2016 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Shivamogga for adjudication between the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court at Shivamogga on 15th October 2018.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm