Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • ALOK ARADHE
Acts
  • Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act)
  • Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • ALOK ARADHE
Acts
  • Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act)
  • Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on 03.05.2001. The petitioner alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the respondent and his family members. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan District. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceeding from Channarayapatna, Hassan District to K.R. Pete, Mandya District, where she currently resides and where she needs to care for her daughter born out of the wedlock. The petition was admitted for hearing and heard finally with the consent of the petitioner’s counsel, while no one appeared for the respondent despite service.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the matrimonial proceeding instituted under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, should be transferred from the Court at Channarayapatna, Hassan District to the Court at K.R. Pete, Mandya District?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
RAJNI KISHOR PARDESHI vs. KISHOR BABULAL PARDESHI, (2005) 12 SCC 237 In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is of prime consideration. The court relied on this precedent to prioritize the petitioner-wife’s convenience in ordering the transfer of the case to the jurisdiction where she resides and can care for her daughter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the petitioner’s residence and caregiving responsibilities, noting that there was no one else to look after her or her daughter at K.R. Pete, Mandya District. The court applied the well-settled legal principle that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial proceedings, as established by the Supreme Court in Rajni Kishor Pardeshi. Balancing these factors, the court found it appropriate to transfer the pending matrimonial proceeding to the Court at K.R. Pete, Mandya District, to facilitate the petitioner’s convenience and welfare.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court ordered the transfer of M.C.No.20/2015 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan District to the Court of competent jurisdiction at K.R. Pete, Mandya District. The direct effect of this decision is to enable the petitioner to pursue the matrimonial proceeding in a forum convenient to her, particularly given her caregiving responsibilities. No broader precedent beyond the application of established principles was set.

Show full summary ...

    SMT. N.JAYASHRI v. SRI.N.S.THIRUMALEGOWDA

    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent though served. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard finally.

    2. In this petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner-wife, inter alia, seeks transfer of the proceeding instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act) from Channarayapatna, Hassan District to K.R. Pete, Mandya District.

    3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent and his family members ill-treated and harassed her. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Act in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan District. The petitioner seeks transfer of the aforesaid proceeding to the Court of competent jurisdiction at K.R. Pete, Mandya District.

    4. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is residing at K.R. Pete, Mandya District and there is nobody to look after her. It is further submitted that the petitioner is required to take care of the daughter, which is born out of the wedlock.

    5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

    6. It is well settled in law that in a matrimonial proceeding, the convenience of the wife is of prime consideration. In this connection, a reference be made to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of RAJNI KISHOR PARDESHI vs. KISHOR BABULAL PARDESHI, (2005)

    12 SCC 237.

    7. In view of the settled position of law and taking into account the fact that there is nobody to look after the petitioner and the petitioner is required to take care of the daughter, which is born out of the wedlock, it is directed that M.C.No.20/2015 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan District be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at K.R. Pete, Mandya District. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    SMT. N.JAYASHRI v. SRI.N.S.THIRUMALEGOWDA
    (Dec 6, 2018)