MABEL TREEZA PINTO Vs. FRANCIS PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant married the respondent on 16-5-1999 in Mangalore. She lived with the respondent for about seven months after which she left for Bangalore. According to the appellant she left because of the conduct of her husband and because her economic circumstances required that she should take up a job. She has since been employed in Bangalore.

(3.) On 17.6.2002 the appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in Bangalore. The respondent appeared and on 22-8-2003 conciliation proceedings were commenced between the parties. In the meanwhile, the respondent had already filed a suit in Mangalore against the appellant for divorce. The appellant made an application under Section 8 of the Divorce act. 1869 to the High Court of Karnataka for transfer of the respondent's suit from Mangalore to Bangalore. The High Court rejected the application for transfer on the ground that Section 8 of the 1869 Act did not allow the High court to transfer a suit to any District Court not having territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of dispute. It is not in dispute that the parties had got married in Mangalore and had last resided together in Mangalore. The High court appears to have been moved by the fact that the Bangalore Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.