- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
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. 111 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA
W/O DASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 26, 10TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, AGARAHARA DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560079.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJANNA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI DASEGOWDA
S/O LATE HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT YALACHAVADI VILLAGE
HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI
Digitally signed
by KUNIGAL TALUK
HEMALATHA A
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126.
Location: Hi gh
…RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS A R.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO A) TRANSFER THE MATRIMONIAL PETITION IN
M.C.NO.95/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL TO PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT
JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (NYAYA DEGULA).B) ISSUE ANY
OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE INCLUDING
COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
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.95/2023
pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal to
the Principal Family Court, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
25.06.2000 at Kothaganahalli Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi
Taluk, Ramanagara, as per Hindu rites and customs. After
the marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband
at her matrimonial house at Kunigal. As matrimonial
disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner started
living separately with her brother at Bengaluru from 2007.
Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition
under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C.No.95/2023 before the Senior civil Judge & JMFC,
Kunigal. The case of the petitioner is that since the
petitioner is residing at Bengaluru, it would cause
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a
distance of 80 kms to Kunigal 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
brother at Bengaluru. He further contended that the
petitioner has filed C.Misc.No.17/2022 and
C.Misc.No.372/2023 under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.
before the Principal Family Court, Bangalore seeking for
maintenance. In the said cases, the respondent has
appeared before the Court. Therefore, if the M.C. petition
filed by the respondent is not transferred to Bengaluru, it
would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the
petitioner-wife. Hence, the learned counsel sought for
allowing the petition.
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband
contended that after the marriage, the petitioner was
residing with her husband at Kunigal and she is familiar
with the places at Kunigal. There is no fear or threat for
her to attend the case at Kunigal. Hence, the learned
counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.
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 25.06.2000 at Kothaganahalli Village, Solur
Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara as per Hindu rites and
customs. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing
with her husband at her matrimonial house at Kunigal. As
matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the
petitioner started living separately with her brother at
Bengaluru from 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
C.Misc.No.17/2022 and C.Misc.No.372/2023 under Section
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
125(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Family Court,
Bangalore seeking for maintenance. The respondent has
appeared in the said cases. The respondent-husband filed
a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act in M.C.No.95/2023 before the Senior civil
Judge & JMFC, Kunigal. The case of the petitioner is that
since the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru, it would
cause inconvenience and great hardship for her to travel a
distance of 80 kms to Kunigal to prosecute the case.
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,
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
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
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
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18466
CP No. 111 of 2024
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:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The case in M.C.No.95/2023 pending on the file of
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Family
Court, Bangalore.
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.: 15