- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL PETITION NO. 87 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT.PADMA ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O H S RAKESH ARADHYA
D/O HANUMANTH ACHAR V.JOSHI
R/AT NO.36, 2ND FLOOR
GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT
MANIPAL COUNTRY ROAD
SINGASANDRA, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU 560068.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJ PRABHU S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.H.S.RAKESH ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Digitally signed
by S/O H S SIDDHARAM ARADHYA
HEMALATHA A
R/O LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
Location: High
6TH CORSS, SLV LAYOUT
Court of
GADIKOPPA, SAGAR ROAD
Karnataka
SHIVAMOGGA 577202.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHAN P.S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO I) WITHDRAW THE CASE M.C.NO. 211/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA
AND TRASNFER THE SAME TO BE THE HONBLE I ADDL. FAMILY
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
COURT AT BENGALURU FOR ADJUDICATION II) PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the
petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.211/2020
pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shivamogga to the I Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
18.05.1998 at Veerabhadreshwara Temple, Haveri District
as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the
petitioner was residing with her husband at her
matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock, a male child was
born on 03.10.2004. As matrimonial disputes arose
between the parties in the year 2016-17, the petitioner
started living separately with her son at Bengaluru.
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition
under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C.No.211/2020 before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shivamogga. The petitioner has filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Family Court Act in M.C.No.692/2022
before the I Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru for restitution
of conjugal rights, which is pending consideration. The
case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner is residing
at Bengaluru along with her son, it would cause
inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a
distance of 340 kms to Shivamogga to prosecute the case.
Hence, she filed the present petition seeking for transfer of
case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contended
that after the marriage, the petitioner was residing at her
matrimonial house. Thereafter, due to matrimonial
disputes, the petitioner started living separately with her
son at Bengaluru. He contended that the respondent is a
resident of Bengaluru and his parents are presently
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
residing at Bengaluru and he is working at a private
company at Shivamogga and only to harass the petitioner,
he has filed a divorce petition at the Family Court,
Shivamogga. He further contended that the petitioner has
filed a petition before the Family Court, Bengaluru for
restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending
consideration. She has no other relatives or family
members to assist her in traveling to Shivamogga, which
is at a distance of 340 kms to prosecute the case.
Therefore, if the petition is not transferred, it would cause
great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner-wife.
Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the
petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband
contended that the respondent is working at a private
company in Shivamogga and he cannot avail leaves often
to attend the case and therefore, it would be difficult for
him to travel to Bengaluru to prosecute the case. Hence,
the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the petition papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally
wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was
solemnized on 18.05.1998 at Veerabhadreshwara Temple,
Haveri District as per Hindu rites and customs. After the
marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at
her matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock, a male child
was born on 03.10.2004. As matrimonial disputes arose
between the parties in the year 2016-17, the petitioner
started living separately with her son at Bengaluru.
Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition
under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C.No.211/2020 before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shivamogga. The petitioner has filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Family Court Act in M.C.No.692/2022
before the I Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru for restitution
of conjugal rights. The case of the petitioner is that since
the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru along with her son,
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
it would cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to
travel a distance of 340 kms to Shivamogga to prosecute
the case. Moreover, the respondent’s parents are residing
at Bengaluru and he keeps traveling to Bengaluru to visit
them.
7. This Court in the case Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri
Sathya @ Suraj - ILR 2010 KAR 5407 at Paragraph
No.15 has held as hereunder:
"The cardinal principle for exercise of
power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that ends of justice demand the
transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.
In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are
called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the
Courts have to take into consideration the
economic soundness of either of the parties,
the social strata of the spouses and behavioural
pattern, their standard of life antecedent to
marriage and subsequent thereon and the
circumstances of either of the parties in eking
out their livelihood and under whose protective
umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
life. Generally, it is the wife's convenience
which must be looked at while considering
transfer. Further, when two proceedings in
different Courts which raise common question
of fact and law and when the decisions are
interdependent, it is desirable that they should
be tried together by the same Judge so as to
avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and
conflict of decisions (See Smt.NandaKishori v.
S.B.Shiua Prakash AIR 1993 Kar 87, Sumita
Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr.
MANU/SC/0936/2001:AIR 2002 SC 396 and
Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar
MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Therefore, taking note of the inconvenience as made
out by the petitioner and the law laid down in the case of
Smt.M.V.Rekha (supra), which provides that convenience
of the wife is an aspect that is to be taken note of while
considering the transfer petitions, petition deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18463
CP No. 87 of 2022
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The case in M.C.No.211/2020 pending on the file of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the I Addl. Family
Court, Bengaluru.
c) The transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit
the entire records to the transferee court.
d) The transferee court after hearing the parties is
directed to dispose of the said case as expeditiously
as possible and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6