Smitha vs Vijaykumar

B. Veerappa, J—These Civil Petitions are filed by the wife. Civil Petition No. 100004/2015 is filed seeking transfer of M.C. No. 199/2014 on the file of the Family court, Hubballi to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal and Civil Petition No. 100003/2015 is filed to transfer M.C. No. 149/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal.

It is the case of the petitioner/wife in both the matters that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.05.2003 at Hebsur Bhavan, Hubballi. They started living at Hubballi and out of the wedlock, a son by name Omkar was born on 22.02.2010; the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner from the early days of their marriage, however, the petitioner tolerated and pacified herself by looking to the future of her child. However, the situation went out of her control, when petitioner and her son were driven out of the house by the respondent in December 2013. Now, she is residing with her parents at Bailhongal and eking out her livelihood by working as a Teacher in a private institution. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed M.C. No. 149/2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of he Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage at Family Court, Dharwad. The petitioner also filed M.C. No. 199/2014 for restitution of conjugal rights at Hubballi. Since, she is residing with her parents at Bailhongal and working as a Teacher and her son is also studying in LKG at Bailhongal, now she is seeking transfer of both cases from Hubballi and Dharwad to Bailhongal.

It is also contended that the distance between Dharwad to Bailhongal is about 60 km and Hubballi to Bailhongal is about 80 km and she cannot travel alone on every date of hearing to Dharwad and Hubballi. She has stated that it is very difficult for her to travel from Bailhongal to Hubballi and Dharwad along with her five years old son. Therefore, she sought for transfer of both the cases.

The respondent has not filed any objections in both the civil petitions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioner has re-iterated the averments made in the civil petitions and sought to allow the petitions.

Sri. S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent/husband is also working as a Teacher at Dharwad. Therefore, the respondent has also some difficulty to attend the cases. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petitions.

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

The marriage between the parties and birth of a male child is not in dispute. In view of the dispute between the parties, wife filed M.C. No. 199/2014 before the Family Court, Hubballi for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent has also filed M.C. No. 149/2014 for dissolution of marriage at Family Court, Dharwad.

The petitioner has specifically asserted in the petitions that she is residing with her parents at Bailhongal and working as a Teacher in a private institution and her parents are very poor and her son, who is five years old, is also studying in LKG at Bailhongal. Therefore, she cannot travel alone on every date of hearing to Dharwad and Hubballi from Bailhongal. Therefore, she is seeking transfer of both cases from Hubballi and Dharwad to Bailhongal, where she is working and her son is studying. It is also stated that the distance between Dharwad to Bailhongal is about 60 km and Hubballi to Bailhongal is about 80 km and she cannot travel, along with her five years old son, on every date of hearing in both cases to Dharwad and Hubballi.

The said assertions made in both the petitions are not opposed by the respondent by filing any objections.

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.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and followed by this Court (stated supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer sought in these civil petitions has to be allowed.

In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) Civil Petition No. 100004/2015 is allowed and M.C. No. 199/2014 on the file of the Family court, Hubballi is withdrawn and ordered to be transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, for adjudication between the parties, in accordance with law;

(ii) Civil Petition No. 100003/2015 is allowed and M.C. No. 149/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad is withdrawn and ordered to be transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, for adjudication between the parties, in accordance with law.