SMT LEENA v. SRI JEETU, Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CP 94/2017

Judges

ALOK ARADHE

Acts

Section 13(1) (ib) r/w Section 13(I-A)ii of the 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 parties were married on 16.01.2013. The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru, which is pending. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) read with Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi. The petitioner seeks transfer of the respondent's petition to Bengaluru to avoid conflicting judgments and for her convenience. The matter was heard finally with consent of both parties' counsel.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the proceeding instituted by the respondent in Hubballi should be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, considering the convenience of the parties and to avoid conflicting judgments.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The distance between Hubballi and Bengaluru is 400 kilometers, making it inconvenient.
To avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments in two different courts, the respondent’s petition should be transferred to Bengaluru.

Respondent’s Arguments

The proceeding instituted by the respondent has reached an advanced stage, specifically the cross-examination of the respondent.

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 principle to prioritize the petitioner-wife’s convenience in ordering the transfer of the respondent’s petition to Bengaluru.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the submissions and records, emphasizing 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. Given the 400 km distance between Hubballi and Bengaluru and the fact that both parties had instituted matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in different courts, the court found it necessary to transfer the respondent’s petition to Bengaluru. This was to avoid the risk of conflicting judgments and to accommodate the convenience of the petitioner-wife. The court balanced the respondent’s argument regarding the advanced stage of the proceedings but gave priority to the overarching principle of convenience and judicial harmony.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the transfer of the respondent’s matrimonial proceeding (Matrimonial Case No. 220/2016) from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to the III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru.

This decision directly affects the parties by consolidating their matrimonial proceedings in one jurisdiction, thereby reducing inconvenience to the petitioner-wife and preventing conflicting judgments. The opinion did not establish any new precedent beyond applying established legal principles.

Show full summary ...

SMT LEENA v. SRI JEETU

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, 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) r/w Section 13(I-A)ii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act) to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.01.2013. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1) (ia) and 13(1) (ib) of the Act against the respondent in the Court of III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru and the same is pending consideration. The respondent has also filed a petition under Section 13(1) (ib) r/w Section 13(I-A)ii of the Act against the petitioner in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S.A. Sami submitted that the distance between Hubballi and Bengaluru is 400 kms and with a view to avoid possibility of conflicting Judgments, it is necessary to transfer the petition instituted by the respondent to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Sri. N.D. Satishchandra submitted that the proceeding instituted by the respondent has reached the stage of cross-examination of the respondent herein.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. 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 the background of the aforesaid legal position, the facts of the case may be seen. The distance between Hubballi and Bengaluru is admittedly 400 kms. Both the parties have instituted the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, which are pending before different Courts. Therefore, with a view to avoid possibility of conflicting judgments, it is necessary to transfer the proceeding to Bengaluru by taking into account the convenience of the petitioner, who is the wife. Accordingly, it is directed that the proceeding instituted by the respondent being Matrimonial Case No.220/2016 pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, shall stand transferred to the Court of III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-

SMT LEENA v. SRI JEETU

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

SMT LEENA v. SRI JEETU

Comments