MRS. R. DAYAKESHWARI v. MR. M. SURESH KUMAR

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding instituted by the respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent-husband had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Court of Additional Family Judge, Mysuru. Meanwhile, the petitioner-wife filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Bengaluru. The parties were married on 12.06.2002, and have a son born on 15.11.2004. The petitioner sought transfer of the dissolution proceeding from Mysuru to Bengaluru to avoid conflicting judgments and for convenience related to child care.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the matrimonial proceeding instituted by the respondent under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending in Mysuru, should be transferred to Bengaluru.
2. The relevance of the convenience of the wife and the possibility of conflicting judgments in deciding the transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner must take care of the child born out of the wedlock, necessitating proximity to Bengaluru.
• Transferring the proceeding would avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments since the petitioner’s application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending in Bengaluru.
• The distance between Mysuru and Bengaluru is approximately 160 kilometers, which impacts convenience.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments as the respondent did not appear.

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	Established that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration.	The court relied on this precedent to prioritize the wife’s convenience in deciding to transfer the proceeding from Mysuru to Bengaluru.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the petitioner’s submission emphasizing the necessity to care for the child and to avoid conflicting judgments between two proceedings pending in different jurisdictions. The court referred to the settled legal position from the Supreme Court in RAJNI KISHOR PARDESHI vs. KISHOR BABULAL PARDESHI, which holds that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial proceedings. Applying this principle, the court found it appropriate to transfer the dissolution petition filed by the respondent from Mysuru to Bengaluru, where the petitioner’s application under Section 9 was pending, thereby consolidating the matters and preventing conflicting outcomes.

Holding and Implications

The petition for transfer of the matrimonial proceeding from Mysuru to Bengaluru is allowed and disposed of.

The direct effect of this decision is the consolidation of related matrimonial proceedings in a single jurisdiction to facilitate convenience for the petitioner-wife and to avoid conflicting judgments. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming the settled principle prioritizing the wife’s convenience in matrimonial matters.