Saranya vs Yuvaraj and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—The wife filed the above petition under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer M.C. No. 210/2014 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Hubli, to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, for adjudication.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent No. 1 and their marriage was solemnised on 14.02.2011 at Venkateshwar Kalyan Mantap, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, as per Hindu customs, rites and rituals. They have lead happy marital life together for a period of four years and out of their wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to twins; presently, one child is with the petitioner and another child is with the respondent No. 1/husband. The petitioner further contended that respondent No. 1 started ill-treating the petitioner and willfully deserted her and the children, and failed to comply with the marital obligations and respondent No. 1 has lost the responsibility of the family and has not arranged for basic amenities of life like food and clothing to the petitioner and her children; respondent No. 1 deserted them without any cause; thereafter, he falsely alleged that the petitioner had illicit intimacy with another person, which is denied by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 has filed a false case before the Family Court, Hubli, in MC No. 210/2014, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce. It is further asserted that, at present, petitioner is residing with her parents at Hospet, along with her children and she is struggling hard to meet her day-to-day family necessities. The distance between Hospet to Hubli is about 160 kilometers; the petitioner is unable to travel all alone on every date of hearing and she has no source of income. Therefore, in view of the above, she sought for transfer of the petition.

Respondent No. 1, though represented by the learned counsel, has not filed any objections to the petition for transfer.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the said M.C. No. 210/2014 is at the stage of evidence. Therefore, there is no need to transfer the case. Therefore, he sought to dismiss this Civil Petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the material on record.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was married with the 1st respondent on 14.02.2011 and out of their wedlock, twin children were born and admittedly one child is with the petitioner and another child is with respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has deserted the petitioner and he has not maintained either his wife or the child. The wife is residing with her parents along with the child. Admittedly, the husband has not provided any financial assistance to the wife or his child.

The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson, to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.

The petitioner specifically pleaded in the petition that the distance between Hospet and Hubli is about 160 km. She cannot travel alone on every date of hearing and she is having two years child and she has no source of income; she is entirely dependent upon her parents for day-to-day livelihood and she cannot spend for litigation and travelling expenses for every date of hearing. The said assertions made by the petitioner is not denied by the respondents by filing any objections. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the petition.

This Court, while considering the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the case of Seema alias Preeti Vs. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar, (2004) 4 KarLJ 572 , relying upon the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme 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 , has held that the convenience of the wife must be looked into while passing orders under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the age of the petitioner, having two years child, and the law declared by the Apex Court and this Court, as stated above, I am of the considered opinion that this is fit case to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner.

In view of the reasons stated above, this Civil Petition is allowed.

M.C. No. 210/2014 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Hubli, is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, for adjudication between the parties, in accordance with law.