Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 406 (KAR)

Suhashini v. S. B. Mahendra Kumar

2015-04-09

B.VEERAPPA

body2015
Judgment : 1. The petitioner/wife filed the above civil petition under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer M.C. No.50/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Sagar to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hirekerur, alleging that she is the wife of the respondent and the marriage between them was solemnised on 27.02.2011 at Taralabalu Kalyana Mantapa at Hirekerur as per Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner further contended that after the marriage, they lived happily for some months, but after the birth of a male child, respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally. After sending the petitioner to her parents' house, respondent did not join the company of the petitioner, but he wanted his son and not the petitioner; there is a threat to her life. Inspite of the same, respondent/husband filed MC No.50/2014 on 25.06.2014 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Sagar, for restitution of conjugal rights. She further stated that she is living with her mother and she is not having any source of income; respondent and his family members are harassing the petitioner by using filthy language and respondent is pressurising the petitioner to live with his mother and not with him; she contends fhat it is difficult for her to reside with his mother as there is danger to her life and ako in attending the Court at Sagar. Further, she is also not earning and nobody in the family can accompany her to attend the Court at Sagar on all hearing dates. The distance from Sagar to Hirekerur is about 100 km, as such, she is unable to travel alone. Therefore, she sought for transfer of the case. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to lis. 3. Sri. Madan Mohan Khannur, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and sought for transfer of the case, as prayed for. 4. Sri. Lingesh V. Kattimani, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the transfer of the case on the ground that he has already filed M.C. No.50/2014 for restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, question of transfer does not arise and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the entire material on record. 6. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the entire material on record. 6. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 27.02.2011 at Taralabalu Kalyana Mantapa, Hirekerur and it is also not in dispute that oat of their wedlock, a male child was born, who is aged about 3 years and the petitioner is residing with her mother. The respondent/husband has not provided any maintenance to her and she has specifically stated in the petition that there is a life threat to her from the respondent/husband and his parents. Now, in order to avoid the maintenance to the wife, respondent has filed M.C. No.50/2014 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Sagar for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner, being a lady with a small child aged about 3 years, cannot travel alone for more-than 100 km from Sagar to Hirekerur on every date of hearing and there is no means to spend for litigation expenses i.e., court fee, lawyers fee, etc. and she cannot maintain herself and the respondent has not paid maintenance till today. Therefore, she sought for transfer of the case. 7. The respondent has not filed any objections except oral objection by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. In the case of SEEMA alias PREETI I/s. PRAMOD CHANDRAKANT VERNEKAR, reported in 2004 (4) KLJ 572, this Court, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUMITA SINGH Vs. KUMAR SAN J AY AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , has held that while considering the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into and accordingly, this Court has allowed the transfer petition filed by the wife. 9. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, being aged about 26 years and with the small child and the respondent is a cashier in a Bank, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, and taking into consideration the entire material on record and the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by this Court, referred supra, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C. No.50/2014, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Sagar, is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hirekerur, for adjudication between the parties, on merits, in accordance with law, and learned Civil Judge is directed to expedite the matter.