NANDINI @ VIDYASHREE VIVEKANANDA SHET Vs. VIVEKANANDA SADANANDA SHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil petition is filed under Section 24 CPC, seeking transfer of M.C. No. 2/2013 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Honnavar to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Udupi. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.1992 at Puttur Village in Udupi Taluk. Out of the wedlock, they have got two children. Now they are aged 11 years and 18 years. Petitioner is staying at Udupi in her own house along with her children. According to her, on account of ill -treatment and harassment given to her by the respondent and the neglect shown by him in supporting the petitioner and her children she was forced to stay at Udupi. Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Case No. 423/2011 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), "Udupi, seeking maintenance, which is contested by the respondent. She urges that with an ulterior intention and in order to further harass the petitioner, the respondent has instituted the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 2/2013 at Honnavar seeking restitution of conjugal rights only to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. It is in this background contending that Honnavar is situated at a distance of 350 Kms., from Udupi, the present petition is filed seeking transfer.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the court to the material on record particularly, the counter statement filed on behalf of the wife in M.C. No. 2/13, submits that the petitioner is required to look after her elder son, who is studying in I year BCA Course in an Engineering College at Bantakal near Udupi and also the second son who is studying in Little Rock School at Bramhavara, will not be in a position to travel between Udupi and Honnavara to attend the case by leaving the children.

(3.) IT is contended in the statement of objections that after he came back to Honnavar, his wife asked him to come over to Udupi stating that she would not be able to live with him at Honnavar. He was kept virtually in house arrest at Udupi and was compelled to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent in M.C. No. 131/2010 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Udupi. After the said petition was filed, the petitioner did not come forward to give evidence and accordingly the said petition came to be dismissed on 09.09.2011. Thereafter, petition seeking maintenance was filed. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the present petition.