Kalyani vs Gangadhar

B. Veerappa, J.—The wife has field the above Civil Petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer M.C. No. 214/2013 pending on the file of Family Court, Hubli, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs on 8.4.2012 at Jamkhandi. After marriage the petitioner started residing with the respondent till the first week of June, 2012. In the meantime, the petitioner was sent to her parental house at Jamkhandi to practice Ashadamasa. Thereafter, the respondent denied to accept the petitioner and even after intervention of the elders, the respondent denied to take the petitioner so as to lead the marital life. Thereafter, the respondent/husband started demanding heavy dowry amount from the parents of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner filed M.C.4/2013 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi, for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed Crl.Misc.167/2013 for maintenance before the JMFC Court, Jamakhandi. The respondent appeared in both the cases. On 18.09.2013 the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi, passed an order to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner. The respondent in order to oppose the claim of the petitioner filed M.C.214/2013 before the Family Court, Hubli, on 19.9.2013 for divorce against the petitioner. The notice of the petition has been served on the petitioner and on 18.11.2013 the petitioner appeared in the said case. The respondent on the same day gave life threat to the petitioner stating that he will not allow her to attend the case at Hubli and threatened her to withdraw all the cases at Jamakhandi. Hence, the petitioner could not be able to attend the Court at Hubli on 5.12.2013. The petitioner reasonably apprehends that her life is at danger while attending the Court proceedings at Hubli. Therefore, she sought for transfer of M.C.214/2013 pending before the Family Court, Hubli, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi.

The respondent has not filed any objections.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the list.

Sri. V.G. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition and prayed to allow the petition.

Sri. Subhash B. Sankad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the transfer on the ground that the respondent is working in a College at Gadag, and being a housewife the petitioner can attend the court at Hubli and there is no difficulty for her. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel.

It is not in dispute that petitioner/wife filed M.C.4/2013 at Jamakhandi, for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed Crl.Misc.167/2013 for maintenance. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/husband filed M.C. No. 214/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Hubli, against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is, that the petitioner cannot attend the Family Court, Hubli, independently on the every date of hearing since there is threat to her life from her husband. The petitioner has no sufficient income to meet the traveling expenses to travel from Jamkhandi to Hubli which is about 150 Kms. It is also not in dispute though the respondent is working as lecturer in a College at Gadag, he is attending both the case filed by the petitioner at Jamkhandi.

Taking into consideration the young age of the petitioner and her economic condition and the avocation of the respondent who is working as lecturer at J.T. College, Gadag, there is no impediment for him to attend the case at Jamakhandi, and the wife has no means to meet the traveling expenses, litigation expenses and she cannot travel alone from Jamkhandi to Hubli to attend the case, and also in view of the dictum of this Court in the case of Seema alias Preeti Vs. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar, (2004) 4 KarLJ 572 , wherein this Court has held that, while considering the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, AIR 2002 SC 396 : (2001) 10 SCC 41 : (2001) AIRSCW 5193 : (2001) 5 Supreme 667 , this Court is of the view that it is fit case to allow the civil petition.

Accordingly, the civil petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C.214/13 pending on the file of Family Court, Hubli, is ordered to transfer to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi, is directed to consider the case on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.