Skip to content


Suma Vs. Radhakrishna Kekkunayya - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtKarnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.P.No. 100150 of 2015
Judge
AppellantSuma
RespondentRadhakrishna Kekkunayya
Excerpt:
hindu marriage act section 13(1)(ia), (ib) dissolution of marriage respondent had initiated petition under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of seeking dissolution of their marriage court held when the petitioner is presently residing at g with her parents due to disputes in their married life, it would not be appropriate to expect her to travel all the way to k to defend the petition as noticed respondent in any event will have to travel to g to prosecute two other proceedings, which are already pending even if the petition is transferred to g , no hardship would be caused to respondent in as much as if the matters are to be considered at same place, it will also be to convenience of parties petition disposed of. (paras 6, 7) .....of all these aspects, the prayer made in the petition is accepted. a direction is issued to withdraw m.c.no.43/2014 on the file of the senior civil judge, karkala, mangalore district and transfer the same to the family court at gadag. the transferee court shall issue notice to the parties and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law. the petition is accordingly disposed of.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This CP is filed under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer M.C.No.43/2014 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court Karkala District Mangalore to the family court at Gadag.)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the case in M.C.No.43/2014 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karkala, Mangalore District be transferred to the Family Court at Gadag.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Due to certain differences in their married life, they have been litigating with each other. The respondent has initiated a petition in M.C.No.43/2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their marriage. The petitioner contending that she would not be in a position to appear and defend the petition before the Court at Karkala is before this Court seeking that the same be withdrawn from the said Court and transfer the same to the Court at Gadag.

3. The respondent on being served has appeared and filed the objection to this petition. It is contended therein that all the efforts made by the respondent to seek reunion has failed, though such effort was also made with the involvement of the children. The difference between the parties is referred in the objection statement and it is contended that the petitioner would not have any difficulty in appearing before the Court at Karkala as her uncle and her cousins are residing at that place. Hence, it is contended that the petition be rejected.

4. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

5. The undisputed facts are that in addition to the petition in M.C.No.43/2014 filed by the respondent/husband, the parties are also locked in the litigation filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also the petition, which was instituted seeking maintenance. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.360/2015 in that regard is pending before the Court at Gadag. In respect of another order, which was passed against the respondent herein in Crl.Misc.No.63/2015, the respondent herein has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.101/2015, which is pending before the Court at Gadag. If in that light, the objection as put forth by the petitioner is taken note, it is essentially with reference to the nature of the dispute between the parties relating to the matrimonial issue. However, what requires consideration herein is with regard to the transfer that is sought to be made.

6. As noticed, the fact that there are two other proceedings, which are pending before the Court at Gadag is not in dispute. If that be the position, the respondent in any event will have to travel to Gadag in the said proceedings. Therefore, in such circumstance when the petitioner is presently residing at Gadag with her parents due to disputes in their married life, it would not be appropriate to expect her to travel all the way to Karkala to defend the petition.

7. On the other hand, as noticed the respondent in any event will have to travel to Gadag to prosecute two other proceedings, which are already pending. In that view, even if the petition in M.C.No.43/2014 is transferred to Gadag, no hardship would be caused to the respondent in as much as if the matters are to be considered at the same place, it will also be to the convenience of the parties. Therefore, taking note of all these aspects, the prayer made in the petition is accepted. A direction is issued to withdraw M.C.No.43/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karkala, Mangalore District and transfer the same to the Family Court at Gadag. The transferee Court shall issue notice to the parties and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //