- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. C. Vidhya v. Sri B.T. Vijaya
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Senior Civil Judge at Challakere in 2013. Following service of notice, the petitioner wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, she also filed a petition complaining of domestic violence. The petitioner then filed the instant civil petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the entire proceedings from Challakere to the Principal Family Court at Bengaluru for proper adjudication and disposal, citing difficulty in travel as the reason.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Challakere to Bengaluru should be allowed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the petitioner has established sufficient grounds, including hardship or inconvenience, to justify such transfer.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner, being a lady, faces difficulty in traveling to Challakere to contest the case.
- For proper adjudication and convenience, the proceedings should be transferred to Bengaluru.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondent’s counsel defended the impugned order denying transfer, implying no sufficient reason to change the venue.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the timeline and conduct of the parties, noting that the divorce petition was filed in 2013 and that the petitioner had actively engaged in the proceedings by filing applications under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a domestic violence petition. The court observed that despite the petitioner’s claim of difficulty in travel, the record indicated no genuine hardship preventing her attendance at the Challakere court. The court emphasized that any legal rights under Section 9 or domestic violence complaints must be addressed before the appropriate court. Given these factors, the court found no bona fide reason to warrant transfer of the case and concluded that the petition lacked merit.
Holding and Implications
The court dismissed the petition seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from Challakere to Bengaluru.
The direct effect of this decision is that the proceedings will continue in the Senior Civil Judge’s court at Challakere. No broader legal precedent was established by this ruling.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 25THDAY OF AUGUST 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
CIVIL PETITION NO.312 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SMT.C.VIDHYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O SRI B.T.VIJAYA, D/O CHIKKAKARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.147/A, SECTOR-2, HMT QUARTERS,
NEAR JALAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 092. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.J.KAMATH & SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND :
SRI B.T.VIJAYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O SRI B.K.THIPPESWAMY,
RESIDING AT HARIKRUPA,
OPPOSITE TO TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
T.R.NAGARA,
CHALLAKERE TOWN - 577 522,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE)
****
1
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY
ORDERING FOR TRANSFER OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING IN MC.NO.53/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHALLAKERE, TO THE
PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU FOR PROPER
ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE SAID MATTER
ALONG WITH MC.NO.5145/2014 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent husband filed a Petition seeking dissolution of the marriage with the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Senior Civil Judge at Challakere. This Petition is filed under Section 24 seeking to transfer the said Petition from Challakere to Bengaluru.
2. It is contended that the petitioner being a lady, it is difficult for her to travel. Therefore, in order to contest the case, the matter requires to be transferred.
2
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The material on record would show that the divorce petition was filed in the year 2013. After service of notice, the wife files an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. A year later she files a Petition complaining of domestic violence. Thereafter the instant Petition is filed seeking transfer. Taking into consideration all these factors, the manner in which the petitioner has been conducting herself, it is apparent that she would not have any difficulty to attend the court at Challakere. Whatever may be her legal rights under Section 9 or domestic violence is concerned, the same is required to be agitated before the appropriate Court. I'am of the view that there are no bonafides in this
3
Petition warranting transfer. In view of absence of any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. SD/-
JUDGE
Rsk/-
4
Alert