Court highlights petitioner's acquiescence in ongoing divorce case and rules traffic inconvenience insufficient for transfer; directs Family Court to expedite trial within three months and records husband's undertaking to deposit maintenance.
The Karnataka High Court, before Mr. Justice Ravi V Hosmani, has dismissed the petition filed by Shakila Rathish seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings from the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The Court observed that although the convenience of the wife normally weighs in favor of transfer petitions, it is not an absolute rule. The judgment underscores that the petitioner's delay, acquiescence in the proceedings, and insufficient grounds such as traffic congestion do not justify a transfer at this stage.
Background
The matrimonial dispute arose from the marriage between Shakila Rathish and Rathish Sasidharan solemnized in 2004. The couple has two children. Due to discord, the petitioner resided separately in Bengaluru with her children. The respondent filed a maintenance case (M.C. No. 89/2021) before the court at Anekal, where the petitioner appeared after nearly a year and participated in the proceedings for over four years.
Petitioner's Grounds for Transfer
The petitioner contended that travelling to Anekal from Bengaluru was arduous due to heavy traffic, hampering her ability to attend court hearings and effectively prosecute the petition. She also claimed ill-health and inconsistent payment of interim maintenance by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the respondent had deliberately misrepresented her residential address to cause harassment and sought transfer of the case to Bengaluru for convenience.
Respondent's Stand and Court's Observations
The respondent refuted the claims and pointed out that the petition for transfer was filed only after five years of the case being on record and after the petitioner had actively participated in the proceedings for over four years. The Court noted this delay and participation as acquiescence, which weighs against the petitioner's claim.
Regarding the alleged ill-health, the Court observed that the petitioner did not produce any medical documents or plead particulars to substantiate this claim. The Court further held that traffic congestion, though inconvenient, is not a sufficient ground to warrant transfer of proceedings. The petitioner's responsibility towards her children was also considered; however, with the children aged 21 and 16, the Court found that the petitioner's presence in court could be facilitated through Video Conferencing.
Mitigating Directions
In order to address the petitioner's concerns, the Court directed that the Family Court consider sympathetically any request made by the petitioner to avail Video Conferencing facilities during the trial. The Court emphasized the need to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months from the next hearing date, October 27, 2026.
Furthermore, the Court recorded the respondent's undertaking to deposit a lump sum amount equivalent to three months' maintenance on the next date of hearing. This amount is to be handed over to the petitioner, subject to any adjustment against arrears.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment clarifies that transfer petitions in matrimonial matters filed by wives are not automatically granted based on convenience alone, especially when there is significant delay and acquiescence. The judgment also highlights the Court's readiness to employ modern facilities like Video Conferencing to ensure fair access to justice while maintaining judicial efficiency.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Though convenience of wife normally weighs in transfer petitions, transfer can be refused where wife had acquiesced in proceedings for several years, failed to substantiate ill-health, and grounds like traffic inconvenience were insufficient - Court may instead permit Video Conferencing and direct expeditious disposal while recording undertaking to deposit maintenance.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code (transfer of cases), Family Court Act, 1984 (provisions related to matrimonial proceedings and maintenance)
Shakila Rathish v. Rathish Sasidharan, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004104
