PADMAVATHI Vs. SATYARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitionerwife seeking transfer of petition in M.C.No.100/2021 filed by respondent-husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, pending on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Ballari to Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition contending that her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 10/2/2012 in front of her parental house at Balayya Camp, (Venkatramanagar Camp) Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, as per the customs and rituals prevailing in their community. That all the demands and requirements of respondent were catered to by her parents. That a daughter by name Meghnashree was born to the petitioner and respondent, who is presently 11 years. That after two years of the marriage, respondent addicted to bad vices and started ill-treating the petitioner and he demanded dowry and insisted the petitioner to bring the amount from her parental house. The petitioner not being able to meet the unlawful demands, physical and mental harassment, requested for a panchayath. However, the efforts of conciliation were failed due to attitude of the respondent-husband. The respondenthusband has driven the petitioner out of the matrimonial home. That petitioner not being able to maintain herself filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.1110/2019 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Sindhanur, which has passed the interim order of maintenance directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 per month to petitioner and Rs.3,000.00 per month to the daughter. Despite the order, the respondent-husband has not been making any payments. In the meanwhile, respondent-husband has filed a petition in M.C.No.100/2021 before the Prl. Judge Family Court, Ballari seeking dissolution of marriage. That the said petition is filed only to cause further harassment and agony to petitioner. The petitioner is presently residing at Venkataramanagar Camp, Post: Jawalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, and she is not able to travel all the way to Family Court Ballari, which is situated about 120 Kms away from her place of residence. Added to that, she is not capable of meeting the expenses. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-husband submits that the present petition is misconceived and cannot be allowed. He submits that the petitioner-wife has filed a suit in O.S.No.222/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ballari against respondent-husband seeking partition and separate possession of the property which is pending consideration. That when she is able to file a suit and prosecute at Ballari, nothing prevents her to attend and prosecute the present matter.