Mr. Vinay S. vs Smt. Asha N.

Ajit J. Gunjal

The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. Both are at loggerheads. Nevertheless the respondent-wife has filed a petition before the Family Court at Mysore seeking restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Whereas the petitioner does not want to stay with the wife and has filed a petition u/s 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act before the Family Court at Bangalore seeking divorce. The present petition is filed u/s 24 of the CPC to transfer the petition filed by the wife at Mysore and be tried along with the petition filed by the husband at Bangalore.

I have heard Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband.

Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband submitted that in the given set of circumstances it is always desirable that the wife should travel to Bangalore and attend the proceedings. He further submits that there is an apprehension to the life of the petitioner if at all the petitioner is to visit Mysore to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent.

I am of the view that this is not a case where compelling circumstances are made out for this Court to exercise its power u/s 24 of the Code to withdraw the proceedings from the Family Court at Mysore and direct it to be heard along with the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-husband at Bangalore.

On the contrary I am of the view that it is all the more desirable if the proceedings pending on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore are transferred to Mysore and heard along with the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife. But however, so far the respondent-wife has not sought for any relief. But however, the request made by the petitioner-husband cannot be granted.

It is no doubt true that Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel submits that the wife is not before this Court seeking transfer of the proceedings. But however, a perusal of Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, which refers to the general power of transfer and withdrawal, such a transfer can take place on a request made by the parties or of its own motion without notice, this Court or the District Court may at any stage transfer or withdraw the proceedings from the Court. Indeed, in the case on hand, I am of the view that the proceedings, which are initiated by the petitioner-husband are required to be withdrawn and transferred to Mysore and be heard along with the petition filed by the respondent-wife. I am of the view that it is a fit case where the suo motu powers are required to be exercised having regard to the matrimonial dispute between the parties. More so, when the respondent-wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the following order:

(i) M.C.No. 1661/12 filed by the petitioner and pending on the file of the III Additional Family Court at Bangalore is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Mysore to be heard and tried along with M.C.No. 196/12.

(ii) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.