ISHWARIDEVI AND ORS. Vs. NEELAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/wife filed the above petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer M.C. No. 7/2015 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, to the Family Court, Gadag.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnised on 11.02.2006 at Panchacharya Kalyana Manthapa, Gadag. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born, now aged about eight years. It is further contended that after solemnisation of the marriage, the parents of the respondent, consistently used to insist the petitioner to bring dowry and when she expressed her inability, she was physically assaulted by the respondent; the respondent is addicted to bad vices like alcohol and used to come to home late night and he has illegal intimacy with other woman of his nearest relatives. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Criminal Misc. Case No. 334/2010 before the I Addl. JMFC, Gadag, for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and at the intervention of the elders, the matter was settled, as the respondent agreed to take back the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner stayed with the respondent for three months and once again, the respondent started ill -treating the petitioner and thus, totally neglected them. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a petition in Criminal Misc. Case No. 18/2015 before the Family Court, Gadag, for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the said petition is pending. Now, as a counter -blast, the respondent has also filed M.C. No. 7/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce. Therefore, she filed the present petition mainly on the ground that the distance between Saundatti and Gadag is about 150 to 200 km. As such, she is unable to attend the case on every date of hearing. She also contended that there is constant life threat to her from the respondent and therefore, she is not in a position to attend the court proceedings at Saundatti. She is having eight years old son and she is financially very poor. Therefore, she sought for transfer of the petition, as prayed for.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.