Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 843 (KAR)

Soujanya M. S. v. Aravind H. S.

2019-04-05

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. Though these petitions are for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties arguments are heard for final disposal. 2. C.P.No.161/2018 is for transfer of G & WC 1/2018 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, to Family Court at Chamarajnagar. C.P.No.162/2018 is for transfer of M.C.No.80/2018 pending on the file of Additional Family Court at Hassan to the Family Court at Chamarajnagar. 3. The averments made in both the petitions are identical. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. They were married on 24.08.2011 at Chamarajnagar. The respondent husband at the instigation of his parents started ill treating the petitioner to bring dowry and also caused the harassment. Therefore she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house along with her minor child. At present the petitioner is residing in her parents house at Chamarajnagar with her minor child. The petitioner being unemployed do not have any independent source of income. As such, she is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings in M.C. No.80/2018 as well as the G & WC petition No.1/2018 before the Family Court at Hassan. If these two petitions are transferred to the Family Court at Chamarajnagar she can conveniently attend the Court proceedings and defend her case. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these civil petitions are filed with an intention to harass the respondent. The averments made in these two petitions are false and baseless. Frivolous grounds are concocted only with an intention to seek transfer of these petitions to Chamarajnagar. The petitioner has filed the C.Mis.No.527/2017 claiming for maintenance. As such the petitioner do not have any financial difficulty in attending the court proceedings at Hassan. There are no justifiable grounds to grant the reliefs claimed. 5. In view of the rival contentions the only question that arise for consideration is, whether the petitioner has made out the grounds for transfer of the MC petition and G & WC petition to the Family Court at Chamarajnagar? 6. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suits, appeal or other proceedings. The relevant provision is sub-section (1)(b) of Section 24, which is as under: 24. 6. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suits, appeal or other proceedings. The relevant provision is sub-section (1)(b) of Section 24, which is as under: 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage, (a) ……. (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and (i) try to dispose of the same: or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn. 7. In the case of M.V. Rekha v/s. Sathya Alias Suraj, (2011) 2 KarLJ 643 , it is held as under: 15. 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 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. 8. 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. 8. In the case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, (2002) AIR SC 396', Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was the husband s suit against wife and, therefore, convenience of wife has to be taken into account and in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237', wherein it has been held that in a matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife is of the paramount consideration. 9. As could be seen from the records the respondent has filed M.C. No.80/2018 and G & WC petition No.1/2018 before the Family Court at Hassan. The petitioner wife has filed C.Mis.No.527/2017 before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Chamarajnagar. 10. During the course of arguments the counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after filing of these petitions the respondent husband had come to the parents house of the petitioner and also in the Court premises and assaulted her. In this connection a police complaint was registered at P.S. Crime No.20/2018 at Chamarajnagar Police Station. He has also threatened to take away the life of the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petitioner apprehends the life threat in the event of attending the Court proceedings at Hassan. 11. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is unemployed and she do not have any independent source of income. The cause title of the MC petition discloses that the petitioner is residing in her parents house. It is also admitted that the petitioner has got a minor child aged about five years. Thus it is evident that the petitioner wife would be put to great hardship in attending the Court proceedings at Hassan. 12. In the facts and circumstances, there are valid grounds for granting the relief claimed for transfer of M.C. No.80/2018 and G & WC No.1/2018. Accordingly, these two civil petitions are allowed. M.C.No.80/2018 pending on the file of Additional Family Court at Hassan and G&WC 1/2018 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, are ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Chamarajnagar. 13. Accordingly, these two civil petitions are allowed. M.C.No.80/2018 pending on the file of Additional Family Court at Hassan and G&WC 1/2018 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, are ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Chamarajnagar. 13. Registry is directed to issue intimation to the Court of Additional Family Court at Hassan and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, for the purpose of transmission of records.