SHYAMALA C S Vs. C S SRIKANTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the wife of the respondent under Section 24 C.P.C. for transfer of suit O.S. No. 96/86 which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur, to the Family Court, Bangalore.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner is stated to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and soon after the marriage, differences arose between respondent and petitioner wife resulting in institution of M.C. 1/85 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and C J M., Tumkur. The marriaga was celebrated in Tumkur only and it is not disputed that the last place of residence of the couple is Tumkur. Various contentions were raised before the Principal Civil Judge and C.J M,, Tumkur, by the respondent and the decree for restitution of conjngal rights was passed by the Court after trial. It is state that no appeal was preferred and the order became final. According to the petitioner she is now residing along with her brother since her father is not capable of maintaining her and that the respondent is residing at Mysore. Both the parties have engaged counsel from Bangalore to prosecute the respective cases at Tumkur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the financial implication of visiting Tumkur for case-purpose has worked out great hardship on her and especially in the matter of utilising the services of senior advocates including conveyance expenditure by car to Tumkur on the dated of hearing. The other point urged in this petition is that both the advocates belong to Bangalore and their coming all the way to Tumkur in time had become problematic and this also reduced the chances of end of litigation within a reasonably short time. It is further urged that the petitioner is unable to go to Tumkur on account of financial distress and that her brother is also finding it difficult to support her, since he himself is a married person having a child. The petitioner was present in Court in person and on being questioned, stated the she is not employed and she often visits parents at Tumkur, and she is presently staying at Bangalore.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the respondent is a Section Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India presently wo king in Chamarajanagar and his parents who are old are suffering ailments and that they have also undergone operation. in such circumstances it is submitted that the respondent is under a duty to take care of his parents by visiting them frequently. One more interesting point urged is that there is every likelihood of the respondent changing his advocate and it is lastly contended that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court.