Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 239 (KAR)

R. N. Shobha Manjunath v. K. S. Manjunath

2010-02-24

H.BILLAPPA

body2010
Judgment :- (1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 24 of CPC, praying for transfer of M. C. No. 39/1994. which is pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Tumkur to the Family Court at Mysore. (2) it is stated in the petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 3-5-1990 and the petitioner and the respondent lived together and thereafter the petitioner gave birth to a female child and went to matrimonial home and she was sent back and she is staying at Mysore with her parents. It is also stated, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Tumkur to attend the case and maintenance proceedings are pending at Mysore. It is therefore, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of M. C. No. 39/1994 to the Family Court at Mysore. (3) The respondent has filed his objections contending that M.C. petition was filed in the year 1994 and the petitioner is not co-operating in disposing of the matter. It is also stated, the petitioner has filed suit for partition at Turuvekere in O. S. No. 123/2006 and she is attending the said case. It is therefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition. (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is staying at Mysore and it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Tumkur every time to attend the case and therefore, the case may be transferred to the Family Court at Mysore. (5) As against this the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that M.C. Petition has been filed in the year 1994 and the petitioner is not co-operating in disposing of the matter and the petitioner is attending the case at Turuvekere and therefore, it is not difficult for the petitioner to attend the case at Tumkur and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 6.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7.I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that M. C. No. 39/ 1994 has been filed in the year 1994 and the petitioner is attending the case. The evidence has already commenced. The petitioner has filed suit in O. S. No. 123/2006 at Turuvekere and she is attending the said case. It is not in dispute that M. C. No. 39/ 1994 has been filed in the year 1994 and the petitioner is attending the case. The evidence has already commenced. The petitioner has filed suit in O. S. No. 123/2006 at Turuvekere and she is attending the said case. Therefore, it is not difficult for the petitioner to attend the case at Tumkur, but, it is proper to direct the respondent to pay the conveyance charges. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is dismissed directing the respondent to pay the conveyance charges of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. The amount shall be paid within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall cooperate in disposing of the matter. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.