1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATsA_L.ti;'n~.,_
Civil Petition No.39/2010
BETWEEN:
R.Preethi W/O S.K.Pradeep.
Age: 21 years
C/o No.J--66, 4"' Cross,
Gayathri Nagar, = ._ _
Banga1ore--21. _ Petitioner?
[By Sri. Prashanth R,'
AND: _ '
S.K. Bradeepv '
Age: 24 years' '
R/o 71%' Cross, IUD}? Lay-Out
Bangalore Road', " V
Ciiitratiurga. A ... Respondent
' SFT.T3£LiT{1.11TiaI', Advocate]
This'j_Civii Petition is filed u / s 24 of CPC praying to
withdraw the case in M.C.NO.14/09 from the file of the
_y Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga and to transfer the
V A. sameyto the Family Court, at Bangalore.
_ . This Civil Petition coming on for admission this
Eday, the Court made the foiiowing:--
Ix.)
ORDER
The petitioner, Wife of the respondent is before”
court under Section 24 of CPC praying to .
case in M.C.No.14/09 pending onrthe r:1é’ggr11l;héV K”
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga and
the Family Court at Bangaloifiii’
2. Learned counsel for-{VApetivtituier’Asubmitsi that the
respondent has filed- divorce in
M.C.No. 14/ ‘th.e”sah’1ue on the file of the
Civil Judge Chltvfafliiigéigfi. A He further submits
that the p._etitior.u:~r_: ggperkmanently residing at Bangalore
and the respondent.Val.s:o=§}ifas residing in Bangalore in a
rente$d’l’1~ouse,l” thereafter shifted his residence to some
»oth.er Bangalore, but the petitioner does not
W’ address in Bangalore. It is also
sub’rnittveVd”that it is not possible for the petitioner to
it “ftravel tinie and again to Chitradurga to attend the case
and” therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner
L
prays that the said Case may be withdrawn and rnade
over to Family Court at Bangalore.
3. Learned counsel for the responden’t…Vs9e:ib1r1its’5
that on the ‘oasis of the comlifaiaint
petitioner, the Rural Police Sta_tion”a_t’ChitrVad’e:..rga
fiied charge sheet for the 4V98–./X
1’/W Section 34.» and the
petitioner had flied e;§;_&i;2;;ee.13e/oe for
maintenanoe Civil Judge
{Jr.Dn.}V,__ good ground for
the pe:titio_11erd’ito.’:s_eek»”t.rAan_sfer of the divorce case from
Chitradurga to it is further contended that
_ thefiresent petition came to be filed with an intention to
“:2 »ha’rass.,the ‘petitioner herein.
A iight of the arguments addressed by the
ii”4″-Wiearneidv…ttounse} for the parties. the only point that
” _ ‘ arises for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner has made a ._
prima facie case to withdratt; 7 ..
M.C.No.14/2009 pending on the file
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga arid
transfer the same to the Family
Bangalore?”
5. Answer for the above
for the following reasoti-sf _’ l l R l V
The petitioner perrnanently in
Bangalore. respondent was
also residingl Bangalore and
thereafter his_fii*esidence to some other place
in Bangalore”, vvhiitlllltlheiilpetitioner does not know the
preseitit address»–_.of the respondent at Bangalore. The
respoVridV’e’ntvhas__ filed a petition on the file of Civil Judge
lfllhitradurga for divorce, against the
pfititlioillélf Who is living in Bangalore. The respondent
it ll..f”hxaisl”notln1ade out any good ground to retain the case in
l Chitradurga. In my view, there is no impediment for the
f]
l
3
in,
\m_.,,….
5
respondent / husband to attend the case at Bangalore,
if transferred. Merely because the petitioner has lodged
a Complaint with Chitradurga Rural police, is no
to reject the present petition. The
filed by the petitioner has reached its ‘-T_1’1y,:u ‘*
view, it would meet the ends of jVu4sti:eet..
ease in M.C.No.l4/ 2009 fror_n”—.the
{sr.on.), Chitradurga and tVrar1s_f_e’r_»_V the to the
Family Court at Bangalore… l
6. In the.rest11t,;.’lthefgpqtitiqrul’allowed. The
case ‘pending on the file of the Civil
Judge is withdravm. and
_ tran Sifelrred to l*”a1nily fiiourt at Bangalore.
sali
Tudge