Savitribai vs G.S. Pradeep

B. Veerappa, J—The wife filed the above Civil Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to transfer M.C.2/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chikkamagaluru to the Principal Family Court, Bellary.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2014 at Sree Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy Temple, Basarikatte, Koppa Taluk as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner started living with the respondent at her matrimonial house. The things went well initially, but later cracks began to appear in the relationship when the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner and respondent and his family members were doubting the petitioner as she has not carried though marriage was consummated after lapse of 5 months and they started blaming and abusing petitioner for the same and the respondent finally drove her out of matrimonial house.

Attempts were made on the part of petitioner for reconciliation with respondent but it went in vain and ultimately, the petitioner approached Mahila Santvana Kendra for redressal of her grievance. After service of notice the respondent did not appeared before them, but he got issued notice to the petitioner through his advocate with certain allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file petition before the Family Court, Bellary in M.C.18/15 for restitution of her conjugal rights. Thereafter as a counterblast, the respondent-husband also filed a petition in M.C.2/15 for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner on the file of the learned Principal Family Court, Chikkamagaluru.

Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Petition on the ground that she is unable to attend the Court at Chikkamagaluru on every date of hearing. As she apprehends threat to her life since the respondent has threatened her with dire consequences as she had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner further contends that the distance between Chikkamagaluru to Bellary is about 280 Kms. which is humanly impossible for the petitioner to go to Chikkamagaluru on every date of hearing as the petitioner has no means to meet the litigation expenses and other expenses as she depending upon her widowed mother. The respondent husband is attending M.C.18/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Bellary, on every date of hearing. Therefore, there would not be any impediment for the respondent to attend the petition in M.C. No. 2/2015 filed by him, if it is transferred to Bellary for further adjudication. With these contentions the petitioner has sought to allow this civil petition.

The respondent has not filed any objections to the civil petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Sri. S.S. Beturmath, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the civil petition and sought to allow the petition.

Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned Counsel for respondent, resisted the averments made civil petition and stated that there is no difficulty for the petitioner-wife to attend the case at Chikkamagalur and the very petition in M.C. No. 18/2015 before the Principal Family Court at Bellary is not maintainable. He has stated that it is the respondent-husband who has filed the M.C.2/2015 for dissolution of marriage and not the wife. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties held on 23.4.2014 and it is also not in dispute that M.C.18/15 is filed by the petitioner/wife at Bellary for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent-husband has filed M.C.2/15 at Chikkamagalur for dissolution of marriage. It is not in dispute that the distance between Chikkamagalur and Bellary is about 280 Kms, and according to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is not in a position to spend any money towards litigation and travel expenses, and due to her ill health she cannot travel such a long distance to reach Chikkamagalur on every date of hearing Further, there is a specific averment that there is threat to her life if she goes to Chikkamagalur to attend M.C.2/2015 filed by her husband. The said averments made in the petition are not denied by the respondent by filing any objections.

This Court in the case of Seema alias Preeti Vs. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar, (2004) 4 KarLJ 572 , while considering the petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, has held that convenience of the wife must 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 .

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the petitioner and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is a fit case to allow the Civil Petition.

Accordingly, the Civil Petition is allowed. M.C. No. 2/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Family Judge, Chikkamagalur, is ordered to be withdrawn and be transferred to the Principal Family Court at Bellary for further adjudication between the parties in accordance with law.