Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 291 (KAR)

Sunitha v. Sharanabasavaraj

2020-01-31

R.DEVDAS

body2020
JUDGMENT R. Devdas J. (Oral) - This petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of matrimonial case in M.C.No.4590/2017 from the Court of the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the parties herein was solemnized on 15.05.2004 and the petitioner gave birth to a male child on 14.11.2008. However, the respondent has filed a petition seeking decree of divorce before the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru in M.C.No.4590/2017 on 13.09.2017. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has also filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.3/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Devadurga, Raichur District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is without any means and she is residing in the parental house depending on her aged parents. On the other hand, it is submitted that the respondent is well off doing real estate business in Bengaluru and it will not be difficulty for the respondent to attend to the Court proceeding in Raichur. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is ready and willing to bear the travel expenses as well as the boarding and lodging of not only the petitioner but also any other person who accompanies the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it is an undisputed fact that the only child born out of the wedlock of the parties herein is staying with the respondent-father at Bengaluru and the respondent has been taking care of the son, who is aged about 11 years. Learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mrs. Aparna P Garg v. Samooh Kejriwal, reported in 2018 (1) AKR 183 to buttress his argument that when the respondent is ready and willing to bear the travel expenses and also boarding and lodging expenses of not only the petitioner but also any person who would accompany the petitioner, then on the principles of equity, this Court should direct the petitioner to accept the offer made by the respondent to attend to the Court proceedings at Bengaluru. 4. Heard the learned counsels and perused the petition papers. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsels and perused the petition papers. 5. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance of a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court, it is noticeable that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Another, reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , has held that in matrimonial matters the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. Even in the case of the Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar situation where an offer was made by the husband to bear the travel expenses and other expenses, of not only the wife but also any person who would accompanying the petitioner, accepted the contention of the husband and directed the wife to attend to the court proceedings in the court where the husband has filed the petition. However, it is noticeable that in the said case, the wife accepted the offer made by the husband. 6. Similarly in the case of Mrs. Aparna P Garg, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the wife had initially accepted the offer made by the husband. But later on, wife retrieved from her statement and submitted that she was not in a position to attend to the court proceedings. However, the court noticed the initial statement made by the wife and having held that the initial statement made by the wife shows that she was in a position to travel and attend to the cases filed by the husband and therefore proceeded to direct the wife to attend to the proceedings which were filed by the husband. 7. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no person who could accompany the petitioner from Raichur to Bengaluru to attend to the Court proceedings. The distance between Raichur and Bengaluru is about 415 k.m. and invariably, if the petitioner has to come from Raichur to Bengaluru to attend to the Court proceedings, she has to stay overnight and if the matter spills over for another day, she has to stay at Bengaluru one more day. The distance between Raichur and Bengaluru is about 415 k.m. and invariably, if the petitioner has to come from Raichur to Bengaluru to attend to the Court proceedings, she has to stay overnight and if the matter spills over for another day, she has to stay at Bengaluru one more day. More importantly, if there is no person to accompany the petitioner, this Court cannot direct the petitioner to accept the offer made by the respondent, even if the respondent is ready and willing to bear the expenses of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent is attending to the court proceedings in M.C.No.3/2018 which has been filed by the petitioner at Devadurga. Therefore, it is all the more reason that the respondent attends to the Court proceedings at Raichur. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The matrimonial case in M.C.No.4590/2017 stands transferred from the Court of the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur. 9. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matrimonial case in M.C.No.3/2018 filed by the petitioner-wife before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devadurga may be transferred to Raichur, in order to enable both the matters to be heard at the same place, if possible, by the same judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, matrimonial case in M.C.No.3/2018 filed by the petitioner-wife pending consideration on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devadurga also stands transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Raichur. 10. Both the learned counsels request that since the petitions were filed in the year 2017 and therefore the petitions should be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Court to which the cases are transferred is directed to dispose of the petitions as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the 1st date of hearing after the cases are taken up by the Family Court at Raichur. 11. Therefore, the Court to which the cases are transferred is directed to dispose of the petitions as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the 1st date of hearing after the cases are taken up by the Family Court at Raichur. 11. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur on 24.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting further notice. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned Courts, where the two matrimonial petitions are presently pending, i.e., M.C.No.4590/2017 and M.C.No.3/2018.