Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1157 (KAR)

Padmavathi v. Satyarayana

2022-09-03

M.G.S.KAMAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed by the petitionerwife seeking transfer of petition in M.C.No.100/2021 filed by respondent-husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Ballari to Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition contending that her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 10/2/2012 in front of her parental house at Balayya Camp, (Venkatramanagar Camp) Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, as per the customs and rituals prevailing in their community. That all the demands and requirements of respondent were catered to by her parents. That a daughter by name Meghnashree was born to the petitioner and respondent, who is presently 11 years. That after two years of the marriage, respondent addicted to bad vices and started ill-treating the petitioner and he demanded dowry and insisted the petitioner to bring the amount from her parental house. The petitioner not being able to meet the unlawful demands, physical and mental harassment, requested for a panchayath. However, the efforts of conciliation were failed due to attitude of the respondent-husband. The respondenthusband has driven the petitioner out of the matrimonial home. That petitioner not being able to maintain herself filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.1110/2019 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Sindhanur, which has passed the interim order of maintenance directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 per month to petitioner and Rs.3,000.00 per month to the daughter. Despite the order, the respondent-husband has not been making any payments. In the meanwhile, respondent-husband has filed a petition in M.C.No.100/2021 before the Prl. Judge Family Court, Ballari seeking dissolution of marriage. That the said petition is filed only to cause further harassment and agony to petitioner. The petitioner is presently residing at Venkataramanagar Camp, Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, and she is not able to travel all the way to Family Court Ballari, which is situated about 120 Kms away from her place of residence. Added to that, she is not capable of meeting the expenses. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-husband submits that the present petition is misconceived and cannot be allowed. Added to that, she is not capable of meeting the expenses. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-husband submits that the present petition is misconceived and cannot be allowed. He submits that the petitioner-wife has filed a suit in O.S.No.222/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ballari against respondent-husband seeking partition and separate possession of the property which is pending consideration. That when she is able to file a suit and prosecute at Ballari, nothing prevents her to attend and prosecute the present matter. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The marriage between petitioner and respondent having solemnized on 10/2/2012 at Balayya Camp (Venkatramanagar Camp) Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, is not in dispute. The petitioner is residing at the address shown in the cause title which is, V.T.Camp, Post: Dammur, now R/o: (Venkatramanagar Camp) Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, is also not in dispute. In terms of Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a petition is required to be presented to the District Court within whose jurisdiction marriage was solemnized or respondent at the time of presentation of the petition resided. In the instant case, the place of marriage and the place of present residence of petitioner is one mentioned in the cause title. In that view of the matter, the respondenthusband ought not be expected to file the petition before the Court at Ballari. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondent-husband that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.222/2022 and she might as well can appear and prosecute the matter, that may not be the consideration. In that view of the matter and also considering the financial and other hardship being expressed by the petitionerwife, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is required to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed. (b) The petition in M.C.No.100/2021 filed by the respondent-husband pending consideration on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballarti be withdrawn and transferred to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur. (c) The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur shall proceed after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties in the matter in accordance with law.