0

The Kerala High Court allows Transfer Petition filed by the wife on grounds of convenience in divorce case

Blog ,

Case Title : Rajam Babu V Babu K.K 

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran 

Date : 21/06/2023

Transfer Petition No. 76 of 2023 

Introduction:

In this case review, we explore a legal matter involving the transfer of a matrimonial dispute. The case revolves around a wife’s request to move her divorce case from one court to another for her convenience. Let’s take a closer look at the facts, analysis, and judgement of this case, which highlights the importance of considering the convenience of the parties involved.

Facts:

  1. The appellant, who is the wife, filed a Transfer Petition (C) No.76 of 2023 seeking to transfer O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur.
  2. The Transfer Petition was dismissed on 25.05.2023.
  3. The appellant and the respondent are Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  4. O.P.No.2752 of 2019 is a petition for divorce filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam.
  5. The appellant had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, O.P.No.1119 of 2019, before the Family Court, Thrissur.
  6. The appellant sought the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 based on her convenience and the requirement for a joint trial of the two cases.

Analysis:

  1. The court refers to previous judgments, including Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, which held that divorce and restitution of conjugal rights petitions between the same parties should be heard and decided together to avoid conflicting decisions.
  2. Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the transfer of petitions in certain situations. Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 21A allows for the transfer of a petition presented later to the district court where the earlier petition was presented.
  3. The court cites previous judgments, including Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, which emphasize the importance of considering the convenience of the wife in deciding a petition for transfer of a matrimonial dispute.
  4. The court notes that the wife’s convenience should be given priority, and the husband should ordinarily take proceedings in the court where the wife resides to minimise inconvenience and avoid delay.

Judgement:

  1. The court concludes that the appellant’s request for the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur should be allowed.
  2. Considering the appellant’s age (69 years), the respondent’s age (72 years), and the principles established in previous cases, the court finds that the transfer is necessary and fair.
  3. The appeal is allowed, and the Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to transmit the records of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 to the Family Court, Thrissur.

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

0

Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Requirement for Wife to Fund Husband’s Travel from the USA in Matrimonial Cross-Examination

Blog , ,

Karnataka High Court

SINDHU BOREGOWDA V. YASHWANTH BHASKAR B P

WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

Bench-   HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

Decided On 05-06-2023

Facts of the case-

In Bengaluru, a husband has initiated divorce proceedings by filing a petition for dissolution of marriage. The trial of the case is currently halfway through, but the husband is residing in the United States. On November 16, 2022, the family court issued an order granting the wife permission to cross-examine her husband. However, the court imposed a condition that the wife must cover the expenses for her travel.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that his client is already paying a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000 to the wife, and there are still some outstanding dues. Therefore, the counsel asserted that it was unreasonable to require the wife to bear the significant cost of the travel expenses. The husband opposed this plea.

Judgement

The court has overturned a previous order issued by the Family Court, which allowed the wife’s application to cross-examine her husband under the condition that she bear his travel expenses of Rs 1.65 lakhs from the USA to Bengaluru. The bench noted that the lower court had already directed the payment of a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner, who lacks a means of livelihood. The bench questioned the logic behind requiring the petitioner to cover the travel expenses of the respondent, who is gainfully employed in the United States of America.

Furthermore, the bench expressed concerns about the petitioner’s ability to afford such a payment, especially considering that it was the respondent’s choice to travel and incur those expenses. The bench clarified that the respondent-husband is not financially incapable and, therefore, should have been responsible for his own travel expenses since he initiated the Marriage Dissolution Case. The bench emphasized that if it were the petitioner-wife who had filed the case, different considerations might have arisen.

Consequently, the petition was granted, and the court requested the lower court to arrange for cross-examination or further cross-examination at the convenience of both parties.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

0

Importance of Timing: Filing Section 498A Complaint After Husband’s Demand for Divorce Cannot Be Grounds for Quashing, Affirms Karnataka High Court

Blog ,

Karnataka High Court

Pramod R. S v. State of Karnataka and Lakshmi M.R 

Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023 

Decided On 02-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, and Lakshmi M.R., who is the respondent, his wife, and complainant, got married on April 19, 2021. It is alleged that the complainant left the matrimonial house on August 14, 2022, due to certain acts of torture. 

Subsequently, on October 13, 2022, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the second respondent seeking an amicable settlement and resolution of their disputes for the purpose of dissolving the marriage. However, on December 1, 2022, the wife registered a complaint against the petitioner, which resulted in the filing of Crime No. 61 of 2022.

The petitioner argues that the wife’s registration of the crime was in retaliation to the legal notice seeking a divorce, and that the alleged offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are not applicable. The petitioner contends that the immediate registration of the crime after the notice diminishes its significance.

On the other hand, the High Court Government Pleader argues that the investigation has just begun and there are serious allegations against the petitioner for offenses punishable under Section 498A and 307 IPC. Therefore, the Government Pleader asserts that the proceedings should be allowed to continue.

Relevant Provision

Indian Penal code, 1860 Related to
Sec. 498-A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

 

Judgement

The court firmly stated that it is not possible to declare a general principle of law that a complaint registered by a wife loses its significance once a divorce notice is sent by the husband. Accepting such a contention would have a detrimental effect on all complaints, and therefore, the court rejected this fundamentally flawed argument.

Upon examining the wife’s complaint, the court found multiple instances of alleged mental and physical torture by the husband. The complaint also included a charge of attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC, with the wife claiming that the husband had strangled her, resulting in a spinal cord injury. Based on these allegations, the court concluded that prima facie offenses were established, necessitating further investigation.

The court emphasized that even if a husband issues a divorce notice or seeks an amicable settlement in close proximity to a complaint alleging prolonged torture, it does not diminish the significance of the complaint. The court stressed the importance of conducting a thorough investigation in such cases and cautioned against dismissing the complaint solely based on the timing of the notice. However, the court clarified that if a complaint fails to establish the essential elements of the alleged offenses, it may be treated differently.

While acknowledging that there are instances where family members are wrongly implicated in complaints under Section 498-A of the IPC, the court underscored the need to assess each case on its own merits. The court disagreed with a previous judgment by a coordinate bench that advocated for the quashing of FIRs solely on the ground that they were registered after the receipt of a divorce notice. Such an approach, according to the court, would undermine the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC and complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court highlighted that the inclusion of Section 498-A in the IPC aimed to prevent the torture of women by their husbands or relatives. Rejecting the argument that the complaint loses significance upon receiving a divorce notice, the court emphasized that accepting such a hyper-technical contention would work against the interests of women and the objectives for which the provision was enacted.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

1 2 3