SUJATHA AND ORS. Vs. MALLANAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife and daughters have filed the above civil petition under Sec. 24 of Civil Procedure Code, against the respondent/husband and father of daughters, praying to transfer M.C. No. 21/2014 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, to the Family Court, Dharwad.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner and respondent were married on 20.4.2000 as per Hindu customs and rituals prevailing in their community and out of their wedlock two daughters, namely petitioners 2 and 3 were born and initially things went cordial. Thereafter, the respondent and his family members started ill -treating the 1st petitioner to give permission to sell the land of the petitioner which was given by her father and to bring dowry. The elders on both sides advised respondent and his family members not to harass the petitioners. However, even after the same they did not stop harassing the petitioners. When the state of affairs worsened and life became intolerable for the petitioners when the respondent knowing fully well that he is already married the 1st petitioner and has two children consumed second marriage. When the same was questioned by the petitioners, the respondent drove the petitioners out of the matrimonial home. The petitioners left with alternative and unable to maintain themselves, filed petition in Crl. Misc. 4/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge Family Court, Dharwad, under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance and even though the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/ - per month, the respondent has not paid single pai to the petitioners. Thereafter the respondent filed M.C. 21/2014 under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner is unable to bear expenses and to attend the matter at Hirekerur, with two minor children. It is further contended that the petitioner is staying along with her daughters at her father's house and her father is also an aged person and 1st petitioner is also not much aware about the proceedings.

(3.) Notice issued by this Court to the respondent though served, has remained unrepresented..