Karnataka High Court
Smt. Greeshma Gurudath Pai vs Mahesh M. Kamath 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.71/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. GREESHMA GURUDATH PAI
@ MAYA M. KAMATH,
W/O. MAHESH M. KAMATH,
D/O. GURUDATH PAI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O. DATTA KRIPA HOUSE,
VENKATESH NAGAR,
KEMMINJE, DARBE VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIKAS KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHESH M. KAMATH,
S/O. PRABHAKAR KAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. SUPRABATHA, MAIN ROAD,
MUNIYAL VARANGA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-574 108.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
......
2
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF CPC, PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO TRANSFER
THE PETITION IN G & WC NO. 3/2018 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M. COURT, KARKALA, TO
THE FAMILY COURT AT PUTTUR FOR ADJUDICATION, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The wife has filed the present Civil Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to transfer G & WC No.3/2018 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, to the Family Court, Puttur, for adjudication.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2003. Out of their wedlock, a female child, Manya was born on 18.04.2004. When things stood thus, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.27/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restoration of conjugal rights. Therefore, 3 petitioner filed CP No.231/2015 before this Court seeking transfer of said M.C.No.27/2015 from Karkala to Puttur. This court, after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 15th March 2018, allowed the petition and M.C.No.27/2015 was ordered to be transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, to the Family Court at Puttur and the matter is pending adjudication between the parties.
3. When things stood thus, the respondent-husband filed G & WC No.3/2018 under Sections 7, 9, 8, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala. The main grievance of the petitioner- wife is that, she cannot travel a distance of 80 kms from Puttur to Karkala to attend the Court on every date of hearing. It is contended that, since earlier M.C.No.27/ 2015 has been transferred from Karkala to Puttur, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent-husband, if the present G & 4 WC No.3/2018 is transferred from Karkala to Puttur. Therefore, the present petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri N.Vikas Krishna, learned counsel for Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that it is not possible for the petitioner to travel from Puttur to Karkala on every date of hearing. Since M.C.No.27/2015 is already transferred from Karkala to Puttur in terms of the orders passed by this Court in CP No.231/2015, he sought to allow the present petition.
6. Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, though not disputed the fact that earlier this Court allowed CP No.231/2015 and transferred MC No.27/2015 from Karkala to Puttur, but 5 contended that his only apprehension is that there is every possibility that the petitioner may deprive the visiting rights to the grand parents of minor child Kum. Manya Kamath, and therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to marriage between the parties and birth of Kum.Manya out of the wedlock, who is now aged 14 years. It is also not in dispute that M.C. No.27/2015 filed by the respondent has been transferred from Karkala to Puttur by this Court. It is also not in dispute that G & WC No.3/2018 is filed by the respondent on 16.01.2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala. Immediately after receiving notice in the said G & WC case, the petitioner- wife has filed the present petition on 26.02.2018 seeking transfer of the said G & WC from Karkala to Puttur. If the said G & WC No.3/2018 is transferred 6 from Karkala to Puttur, no hardship will be caused to the respondent-husband, since M.C.No.27/2015 has already been transferred from Karkala to Puttur, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in made C.P. No.231/2015.
8. 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
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Petition is allowed. G & W.C.No.3/2018 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Puttur for adjudication between the parties. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the respondent-husband to file necessary application seeking visiting rights. If such an application is filed, it is open for the Family Court, Puttur, to consider the same and pass orders, strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm