RAHUL MARUTI PAITHATALE Vs. NASIRUDDIN HAIDAR SAYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') R/w Sec. 151 of CPC for transferring G & WC No.33/2022 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Nyayadegula, Bengaluru, to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, for disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioners assert that petitioner No.1 is working in a Private Sector Unisys India Limited on work- from-home arrangement at Belagavi since 2020. That he is married to a Muslim Lady Ms. Goharjahan Sayed in the year 2014 who is the daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the marriage is registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Belagavi. Out of the said wedlock the second petitioner was born on 3/8/2016 at Bangalore who is now aged about 6 years. It is asserted that he is under the care and custody of petitioner No.1 and the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2 expired due to Covid leaving petitioner No.1 and 2 as her legal heirs. It is further asserted that the petitioners have also filed a petition in P @ SC No.4/2020 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the maternal grant parents filed G & WC No.33/2022 for the custody of petitioner No.2 by making certain false allegations against petitioner No.1. He would contend that Second petitioner is studying in Love Dale Central School, Belagavi, and petitioner No.1 is also permanently residing in the address shown in the cause title since the date of death of his wife at Belagavi. Hence, he would contend that it will be difficult for the ward to travel from Belagavi to Bengaluru for attending proceedings at the cost of the missing the school and petitioner No.1 is the natural guardian. As such he would seek for transfer of the petition from Bangaluru Family Court to Belagavi Family Court.

(3.) The respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed objection statement disputing the claim. The main contention of the respondents is that the child was permanently staying in Bangaluru and further petitioner No.1 is also employed in Bangaluru but due to Covid, he has opted work from home and as such temporarily he is residing in Belagavi. Hence, he would contend that Belagavi Court would not get any jurisdiction and respondents further denied the allegations made in the petition regarding filing the G & WC case by making false allegations. Hence, they dispute the claim of the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the petition.