MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Matrimonial Transfer Cases, Rules Karnataka High Court

07 November 2024 9:33 PM

By: sayum


Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad cites economic soundness and social considerations in granting transfer petition under Section 24 of CPC

The Karnataka High Court has granted a transfer petition in a matrimonial case, emphasizing the importance of the wife’s convenience. Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad allowed the transfer of the case from Bengaluru to Tiptur, considering the hardship and inconvenience faced by the petitioner-wife. The judgment underlines the legal precedent that prioritizes the wife's ease in such matters.

The petitioner, Tanushree Y., married the respondent, Naveen P., on May 22, 2023, in Tiptur. Post-marriage, matrimonial disputes led the petitioner to move back to her parental home in Tiptur, where she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in Bengaluru. The petitioner sought a transfer of this case to Tiptur, citing the significant inconvenience of traveling 190 km to Bengaluru.

Justice Narendra Prasad highlighted the consistent legal stance that the wife’s convenience should be a primary consideration in transfer petitions in matrimonial cases. "The petitioner is residing in Tiptur with her aged parents, and traveling to Bengaluru causes significant hardship," the court noted. The court took into account the petitioner’s economic situation and the absence of familial support for traveling such a distance.

Citing the case of Smt. M.V. Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj, the court reiterated the importance of considering the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes. "Generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer," the judgment noted, referencing multiple precedents that support this view, including Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Smt. Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar.

The court also noted that interconnected cases should ideally be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions. "When two proceedings in different courts raise common questions of fact and law, it is desirable they be tried together by the same judge," the judgment emphasized, citing the importance of judicial efficiency and consistency.

Justice Narendra Prasad stated, "The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal, or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, the wife's convenience is paramount."

The Karnataka High Court’s decision to grant the transfer petition reinforces the judiciary's commitment to considering the convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes. This ruling aligns with established legal precedents, ensuring that the petitioner-wife can prosecute her case without undue hardship. The judgment is expected to influence future transfer petitions, affirming the principle that the wife’s convenience is a crucial factor in matrimonial litigation.

Date of Decision: July 3, 2024

Tanushree Y. v. Naveen P.

Latest Legal News