Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 331 (KAR)

Soumya v. Manjunath

2015-03-25

B.VEERAPPA

body2015
ORDER B. Veerappa, J. 1. The petitioner/wife has filed the above Civil Petition under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to transfer M.C. No. 59/2013 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, to the Family Court, Gadag. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent were married on 22.11.2009 at Sri Panchacharya Mangalya Mandir, Gadag, according to their religious rites, customs prevailing in their community. Out of their wedlock one child was born and after 22 days the child died. The respondent was very unhappy from the very beginning of the marriage, demanding dowry, gold etc, though the petitioner's parents complied all the requirements as per the marriage talks held prior to the marriage. The respondent made the petitioner to reside in her parents house at Gadag and the respondent has not provided any maintenance and totally neglected in spite of the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in Cri. Misc. 9/2013 claiming maintenance before the Civil Judge, JMFC, Gadag and thereafter the respondent/husband also filed a petition in M.C. No. 59/2013 under Section 13(1a) and (1b) of Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of dissolution of marriage before the Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol. 2. The petitioner alleged that due to harassment of the respondent, she is suffering from illness and took treatment in different hospitals by taking loan. The distance between Mudhol and Gadag is about 250-300 kms. and it is almost 5 to 6 hours journey. Due to her ill-health, the petitioner cannot travel long distance and there is life threat to the petitioner from the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not able to go to Mudhol and represent the case. Therefore, she has filed the present petition seeking for transfer of MC. 59/2013 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, to the Family Court, Gadag. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Sri H.N. Gulareddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner is suffering from illness and admittedly, the respondent/husband has not paid any maintenance till today, though she has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. pending on the file of JMFC, Gadag. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Sri H.N. Gulareddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner is suffering from illness and admittedly, the respondent/husband has not paid any maintenance till today, though she has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. pending on the file of JMFC, Gadag. The petitioner cannot attend the Court at Mudhol due to her ill-health and she is alone and there is threat to the petitioner from her husband, etc. Therefore, he sought for transfer of the petition filed by respondent/husband pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, to the Family Court, at Gadag. 5. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record. 7. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner filed a petition in Crl. Misc. 19/2013 under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Gadag and the same is pending. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed the divorce petition in M.C. No. 59/2013 under the provisions of Section 13(1(a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol. The allegation made in the petition that there is life threat to the petitioner from the respondent/husband and the distance between Gadag and Mudhol is about 250 to 300 Kms, which almost takes 5 to 6 hours to travel from Gadag to Mudhol to attend the case, is also not in dispute. 8. The petitioner is aged about 23 years and she cannot travel alone from Gadag to Mudhol which is about 250-300 Kms to attend the case at Mudhol on every date of hearing and she cannot spend money. The respondent being a Police Constable can very well travel from Mudhol to Gadag without any difficulty. 8. The petitioner is aged about 23 years and she cannot travel alone from Gadag to Mudhol which is about 250-300 Kms to attend the case at Mudhol on every date of hearing and she cannot spend money. The respondent being a Police Constable can very well travel from Mudhol to Gadag without any difficulty. Taking into consideration the young age of the petitioner and the distance between Gadag to Mudhol which is about 250 to 300 Kms and in view of the law laid declared by this Court in the case of Seema alias Preeti v. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar, reported in 2004 (4) Kar LJ 572, relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, reported in ATR 2002 SC 396, holding that while considering the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 9. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code and the dictum of this Court and Apex Court as stated above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that M.C. 59/2013 filed by respondent/husband which is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, has to be transferred to the Family Court at Gadag. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C. 59/2013 filed by respondent/husband which is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Gadag for adjudication between the parties. Since the matter itself is disposed of on merits, the question of considering I.A. 1 does not arise.