Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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