Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 85 (KAR)

Dhanalakshmi P. v. Rajesh R.

2020-01-09

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.5106/2019 from the Court of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru to the Family Court at Mangaluru. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.09.2016 at a Temple in Selam, Tamil Nadu as per the Hindu rites and customs. There is no issue out of the wedlock between the parties. The petitioner is living with her parents at Mangaluru, due to misunderstanding that arose between the parties. The respondent has now filed a matrimonial case in M.C.No.5106/2019 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is without means and she is unable to travel to Bengaluru to attend to the Court proceedings. On the other hand, it is submitted that the respondent is a Lecturer working at Christ University, Bengaluru and it is not difficult for the respondent to travel to Mangaluru to attend to the court proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is ready and willing to bear the expenses of traveling of not only the petitioner but also any other person who would accompany the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it will be difficult for the respondent to get leave every time he has to attend to the Court at Mangaluru. It is therefore submitted that the petition be rejected and permit the respondent to bear the expenses of travel of the petitioner and direct the petitioner to attend the Court proceedings at Bengaluru. 4. Heard the learned counsels and perused the petition papers. 5. Even though the respondent is ready and willing to bear the expenses of travel of not only the petitioner but also any other person who would accompany the petitioner, this Court finds that such a direction may not be fruitful. Though the petitioner has a brother who is aged about 21 years, he is studying in an Engineering College at Mangaluru. It will not be possible for the petitioner to get her brother to accompany her to attend to the Court proceedings at Bengaluru. Similarly, it may not be possible for the petitioner to request her parents to accompany her every time to Bengaluru. It will not be possible for the petitioner to get her brother to accompany her to attend to the Court proceedings at Bengaluru. Similarly, it may not be possible for the petitioner to request her parents to accompany her every time to Bengaluru. It is possible that the court proceedings may not be concluded in a day or two and it may spill over to the next day or days to come and the petitioner will have to be accommodated at Bengaluru. 6. In such circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Another, reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , has held that the convenience of the wife has to be considered in the matrimonial matters. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 , this Court finds that in the case of Anindita Das, the husband had agreed to bear the expenses of 2nd class A/C train journey and take care of the boarding and lodging of a three star Hotel at New Delhi and therefore, the wife was directed to attend to the proceedings at New Delhi, which was instituted by the husband. 7. However, in the present case, it is found that the petitioner has no one to accompany her and stay overnight at Bengaluru. As noticed earlier, the brother of the petitioner is still studying in a College, while it is given to understand that the father of the petitioner is a goldsmith carrying on his business at Mangaluru. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the father of the petitioner will not be able to accompany the petitioner to attend to the proceedings at Bengaluru every time the proceedings are taken up. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that even though the respondent is ready and willing to bear the expenses of travel, lodging and boarding of the petitioner and a companion, the petitioner is not in a position to accept such an offer. 9. Taking the entirety of the situation into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is required to be allowed. 9. Taking the entirety of the situation into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is required to be allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed and M.C.No.5106/2019 stands transferred from the Court of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru. 10. However, keeping in view of the fact that the respondent is working as a Lecturer on contract basis in a private University at Bengaluru, and in view of the fact that he may not be able to take leave often, this Court deems it fit to direct the Family Court at Mangaluru to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of commencement of the first hearing before the Family Court at Mangalore. The petitioner is also hereby directed to cooperate and ensure that the proceedings are concluded at the earliest. It is ordered accordingly.