Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 52 (KAR)

Vibha Kamath v. Narendra R. Pai M.

2021-01-06

SIDDAPPA SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2021
ORDER : Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. 1. C.P. No. 196/2018 has been filed by the husband seeking for transfer of proceedings pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, in M.C. No. 92/2017 that has been instituted for dissolution of matrimonial relationship. Petitioner has sought for withdrawal of the said proceedings with a direction that the same be transferred to the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, to be heard and disposed off along with M.C. No. 2570/2017 filed by the petitioner seeking for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. On the other hand, respondent-wife has filed C.P. No. 68/2018 at an earlier point of time seeking for transfer of proceedings in M.C. No. 2570/2017 instituted by the husband seeking for restitution of conjugal rights from the Family Court at Bangalore to the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi. 3. The basic facts are not in dispute. It comes out from the pleadings that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.04.2016 and subsequently due to differences, petitioner and respondent have been living apart. Copy of the pleadings have been produced and it is borne out from the records that M.C. No. 92/2017 has been filed by the wife seeking for a decree of dissolution of marriage and for permanent alimony. Copy of the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is produced. Similarly, copy of the petition in M.C. No. 2570/2017 pending before the Family Court at Bangalore filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is also produced. It would indicate that the husband has sought for decree as regards restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition is pending before the Family Court at Bangalore. In order to avoid conflicting decrees, both the matters will have to be decided by the same Court. 4. Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the wife is currently working in Bangalore and though she is attending to duty, she is physically not present at Bangalore and working online. In order to avoid conflicting decrees, both the matters will have to be decided by the same Court. 4. Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the wife is currently working in Bangalore and though she is attending to duty, she is physically not present at Bangalore and working online. Therefore, he requests that in the event of transfer of proceedings to the Court at Bangalore as regards the petition instituted by her, reasonable accommodation can be made as is permissible under the prevailing SOP until she physically relocates to Bangalore, to her workplace. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that reasonable expenses for travelling till the wife relocates physically to Bangalore when she resumes her duty at Bangalore would be borne by the husband. 6. Taking note of the submissions made by both the counsel and also the necessity of consolidating the proceedings to avoid conflicting decrees, the proceedings pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi in M.C. No. 92/2017 is directed to be withdrawn and transferred to the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, to be decided along with M.C. No. 2570/2017. 7. It is observed, however, that in light of the difficulties expressed by the learned counsel representing the wife as regards travelling as she is presently working from home, the Court after the matter is transferred to accommodate the request of the wife and permit participation through video conference as per the prevailing SOP. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, as and when required, presence of wife physically before the Court would be made as undertaken by the learned counsel for the wife. 8. In light of the above said observations, C.P. No. 68/2018 and C.P. No. 196/2018 are disposed off. It is made clear that the proceedings shall resume on transfer from the stage at which the proceedings stand as on date. The records relating to M.C. No. 92/2017 to be transmitted forthwith to the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore.