DEEPA Vs. KIRAN R. VARNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of M.C. No. 533/2013 pending on the file of the Family Court, Bangalore to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Honnavar. Though the petitioner has sought for transfer of this case to be tried along with C. Misc. 88/2013, as the said case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Honnavar, the matrimonial case cannot be transferred there because he has no jurisdiction to try the old cases. However during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matrimonial case may be transferred to the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Honnavar. Petitioner is the wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 25.03.2010. According to the petitioner, due to ill treatment by the respondent and his family members, she has been forced to stay away from the respondent. It is urged by her that with effect from the month of June 2010, petitioner has been deserted and has been living with her parents at Honnavar. It is her further case that she has filed criminal case in C. Misc. 88/2013 before the Court at Honnavar seeking maintenance. It is urged that interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/ - per month is ordered. The husband on his part has already filed affidavit evidence.. The matter is now set down for cross -examination of the respondent herein. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court seeking transfer of the case to Honnavar contending inter alia that she is experiencing serious difficulty in travelling from Bangalore to Honnavar covering the distance of about 500 Kms. It is her contention that she is not in a position meet the expenses required for travelling to Bangalore to defend herself.

(2.) RESPONDENT resisted the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is prepared to meet the expenses required for the petitioner to come over to Bangalore on selected dates for the purpose of evidence. He urges that as the respondent is employed in Bangalore, he will not be in a position to avail leave frequently to attend the case at Honnavar, if the same were to be transferred there. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the sister of the petitioner is staying at Bangalore and it will not be difficult for the petitioner to come over to Bangalore to attend the case.

(3.) AS rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, respondent may find it difficult to avail leave frequently. He has to work and earn. It is not in dispute that he is already paying monthly maintenance as ordered by the Court at Honnavar. If the travel expenses and other incidental charges of the petitioner are met by the husband, in my considered view, it will not be necessary to transfer the matrimonial case filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband to Honnavar. Accordingly, I pass the following: