(1.) This Tr.C.M.P. is filed with a prayer to transfer V.M.C.No.l of 2006, listed in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwad, which, thereafter, is scheduled to be transmitted to the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Senior Division, Hubli, to the Family Court at Hyderabcd.
(2.) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 14-11-2003 at Hyderabad. They were also blessed with a child. The respondent filed V.M.C.No.l of 2006, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act), against the petitioner, by urging several grounds. Before that, he filed M.C.No.1 of 2006, for the same relief, but had withdrawn it. The petitioner on the other hand, filed F.C.O.P.No.481 of 2006 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of Conjugal rights. She pleads that it would be difficult and unsafe for her, to attend the Court at Hubli. It is alleged that she has been subjected to harassment, by the respondent, at various points of time, and that at present, she is residing with her parents', on being deserted by the respondent.
(3.) Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the V.M.C. was filed in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, in the State of Karnataka this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the) Tr.C.M.P. He relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Vempati Sarada v. Vempati Kaladhar, 2003 (3) ALD 496 and Mamta Gupa v. Mukund Kumar Gupta, 2000 (3) ALD 285. Sri S.R. Sanku, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertcin the Tr.C.M.P., in respect of a matter pending in the Court in a difterent place. He made submissions on merits also. By all means, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act, against the petitioner, in the Vacation Court, may have been transmitted to the regular Court and re-numbered. Obviously, due to lack of information, the petitioner had furnished the number given by the Vacation Court.