Karnataka High Court
Smt Sandhya H R vs Sri Karthik B S on 20 September, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CIVIL PETITION No.339/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. SANDHYA H. R.,
W/O SRI.B.S.KARTHIK,
D/O SRI.RAMASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMAIAH GOWDA L. M., ADVOCATE )
AND:
SRI KARTHIK B. S.,
S/O SRI.B.N.SRINIVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.108,
BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 099.
(THE RESPONDENT HAS GIVEN
WRONG ADDRESS BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMANATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G. S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
2
......
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE MC.NO.
5418/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF V
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU TO THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
MALUR, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The wife filed the present Civil Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer M.C.No.5418/2017 pending on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malur.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at K.N.T. Kalyana Mantapa, Hosuru-Bengaluru Main Road, Chandapura Circle, Anekal Taluk, on 06.08.2014. Out of their wedlock, a female child, Kum Sanvika, was born on 26.08.2015. When things stood thus, the 3 respondent filed M.C.No.5418/2017 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage, on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. The petitioner has difficulty in traveling a distance of 60 kms from Malur to Bengaluru with minor child, to attend the Court on every date of hearing. Therefore, the present petition is filed for the relief sought for.
3. The respondent husband filed objections. He has not disputed the averments made in the petition and assured the Court that he is ready and willing to pay the traveling expenses to the petitioner and further contended that by mere attending the Court at Bengaluru from Malur, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, he sought to dismiss petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4
5. Sri L.M.Ramaiah Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that the petitioner is aged 28 years and it is not possible for her to travel with the minor child aged 2 years 2 months from Malur to Bengaluru on every date of hearing. The respondent, though he is resident of Anekal, has given his address wrongly as Bengaluru without any basis. He contended that there is life threat to the petitioner and therefore, sought to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Somanath, learned counsel for Sri G.S. Venkata Subbarao, learned counsel for the respondent /husband, reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, sought to dismiss the petition mainly on the ground that the respondent is ready and willing to pay the traveling expenses and reasonable litigation expenses.
5
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.08.2014 at K.N.T. Kalyana Mantapa, Hosur-Bengaluru Main Road, Chandapura Circle, Anekal Taluk and out of their wedlock, a female child Kum. Sanvika is born and she aged about 2 years 2 months. The respondent husband, filed M.C.No. 5418/2017 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, making certain allegations against the petitioner/wife. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent/husband has given wrong address in the cause title. Though he is resident of Bommasandra village, Anekal Taluk, only for the purpose of filing the petition at Bengaluru. The material on record clearly depicts that the petitioner is aged about 28 years having a minor child aged about 2 years 2 months and she has to travel a distance of 60 kms from Maluru to Bengaluru in heavy traffic, to attend the 6 Court on every date of hearing. The respondent/husband has not shown what is the difficulty for him to travel from Bommasandra to Malur. The petitioner, in categorical terms has stated that there is life threat to her from the respondent.
8. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and minor child, in the absence of any contra material produced by the husband, this Court is of the opinion that lenience has to be given to the wife who is having a minor child aged 2 years 2 months.
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 7 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".
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C.No.5418/2017 pending on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Maluru, for adjudication between the parties.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm