Karnataka High Court
Smt Prajna Muralidhar @ Prajna ... vs Dr Koteshwara S Muralidhar Aged About 32 ... on 21 January, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
DJ ORDER
This petition is under Section 24 of the CodeVof_iiCivi1 Procedure seeiging transfer of the case of pending on the file of the II Additional Ci_v.iI_iitidgetsenior' Division), Bellary for being transfeieredbto ithe F4a'in:i1yu Mangaiore.
2. I have hearsdflearnleizliieounsel for theuxpetitioner and none appears for the re~spoiVi'der1t._.~._2" V the petitioner's counsel Sri. Basavap'r'abin:i 'Hosak<?ri"-.i__.="§"«that the petitioner is presently working as Tahasilciar in Bangalore and her son is staying at .i*Manaa1Eo"1*e along withiithe petitioner'S mother and therefore hpetitiorgera.fiiesires that the case be transferred from Beliary Mangalore Court as it would be convenient fifor the petitioner to attend the Court at Mangalore and at the "<"_same; time to also visit her son. Further submission made is that the responcienbhusband is staying in UK. and the case X ' P is now being prosecuted by the respondent's father. submitted that a criminal case against the "
husband was also filed in Mangalore Court registered by the Ullal police station in:'Crii5ne'* ,[ the respondent herein has also O3j.t'a~i.ned frorniv.the__VCri.rrrinal * it Court at Dakshina Kannada, these reasons and also relying ;i'i.3o'titrt7:s'c1ecision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme submitted that the wife's. into and as such the prayer case from Bellary to Mangalorev~,be'--gravn -~ ., ii V' h
-4.3: V 'Having'=--..he_ardt the petitioner's counsel for the 'parties and taltigng note of the facts and circumstances and the peititioiner her child is residing at Mangalore and a criminal c--ase*"is also registered against the respondent
53. pending before the Court at Dakshina Kannada, 4i_"lv.[a'ngalore, in Crime No.16-4 /200731 am of the View that the b» . X prayer of the petitioner needs to be considered, as the"Apex Court in the case referred to by the petitioners CO1}_4E'iS_:é1.!i'1£';lS observed that the wife's convenience wiii have Be' . into, the petition, therefore, has to be» allowed" ri1"eetAVthei' ends ofjustice.
In the resuit, petition isi4ii"aiIowed "E.1'1'1(,2VV1: $5/I.(3vif;C37/2007 pending on the file of JHudge(Senior Division), Beilary, is Court at Mangaiore for iaw.
1111 .__f;; '*2, "~~~1v"'(V.JAGANN THAN?/*7 , ., a4.'. _. JUDGE Kmv i O1)d2y2diQ m.H .....
ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO learned eounsei for the respondent. ., matter is being heard for being spoken to stage afiolioinirig this Court having passed an order on 21.01.2010 if
-.sr allowing the petition filed by the wife seeking transferof the Case to the Court of Managaiore.
Though the learned counsel for the respoixdient"'afgiizeqf v the matter through her colleague, thes't1bniissi.oniV'rio_w made".
by the counsel for the respondent is__ that inconveni~ence'~~of'~. both the parties will have to be..i4g:t"a.ken into Vacco_:un't,"u"ln'V this ' regard, she brought to noticeinof thgi_s cot,irt'*decisions in the cases of Elluri Raji State of Delhi and another (2GQ4v..(4) _l\rl'a't;>evl Treeza Pinto vs. Francis Pinto" "(?_)..'__:"S.CC." '?'€)l)_»stating that as the husband is'_Aret;idingv.i'n -liln«i_t_ed_ Kingdom and when he comes to lndia"he"wiil' place at Bellary, counsel wanted the traijisfeVr"pe.titio11 to be rejected. the otherhand, learned counsel for the petitioner 'res'tated_ the «_'S"{;ib.1"I1.iSSi£)1'}S aiready made which had laid this CO1,li'~{'{(\ 4/1%/:sVVA(:=he petitiogithe aforementioned date. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of--phe decisions, I am of the View {hat in the instant case, th'r3V"oi§dc;£f passed does 110% call foz" any-' modification. . " A Jm/--