RAMYA VIJETA Vs. DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the matrimonial case in M.C. No. 210/2019 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Dharwad to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 29.10.2017 as per the Indian Marriage Act, at Udupi. Both the parties are doctors. The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Professor, at Manipal College of Dental Sciences at Manipal, Udupi, while the respondent is working at SDM College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, at Dharwad. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have not lived together after the marriage for a long time. The petitioner continues to work at Manipal and she is staying at udupi, while the respondent is residing at Dharwad along with his parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a matrimonial case in M.C. No. 210/2019 for a decree of divorce. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing at Udupi along with her parents and she travels to Manipal everyday to attend to her work. The petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Professor and she will not be able to take leave to attend to the Court proceedings at Dharwad. In this regard, the learned counsel points out to the order of appointment at Annexure-C, wherein at condition No. 6, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner is bound by the rules and regulations enforced by the Management from time to time in relation to conduct, discipline, leave, holidays or any other matters in relation to the service conditions.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is residing at Dharwad and he has to take care of his father, who has undergone brain surgery and the presence of the respondent is very much necessary at Dharwad. On the other hand, it is submitted that the petitioner is a well educated lady, who has worldly knowledge and has traveled worldwide. Moreover, the petitioner is used to travelling between Dharwad and Udupi and it will not be difficult for the petitioner to travel to Dharwad to attend to the Court proceedings. In this regard it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is ready and willing to bear the travel expenses of the petitioner, if so required. The learned counsel for the respondent also points out to the order of appointment at Annexure-A filed along with the statement of objections to submit that the appointment of the respondent is on contract basis only for the period of one year initially, from the date of joining of service and it will be confirmed after satisfactory completion of the same. Insofar as leave is concerned, the learned counsel points out to condition No. 8 of the appointment letter, which mandates that the leave cannot be a claimed as a matter of rights. However, the respondent is entitled to leave benefits as per the SDME Society (R) Employees Service Rules, in force.