The Karnataka High Court rejected a wife's petition to transfer divorce proceedings to a different family court, noting that the plea— filed after a delay of five years since the institution of the case and four years after she entered her appearance— disclosed “acquiescence on part of petitioner.”

Justice Ravi V Hosmani further ruled that a distance of 45 km between the wife's residence and the family court cannot be a ground to transfer the proceedings.

“Normally, in case of a petition by wife for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, her convenience weighs in. But, one of glaring facts, in instant case, is that this petition is filed five years of pendency of divorce proceedings and four years after entering appearance and more than a year after application for recall of PW.1 for cross-examination. Above dates would disclose acquiescence on part of petitioner,” the Court said.

Rejecting the wife's submission regarding ill-health and travel inconvenience, the Court said, “Insofar as ill-health, no documents are produced nor particulars of ill-heath pleaded to inspire consideration. Even if travel route from Bengaluru to Anekal is dense with traffic, same would not be a ground for transfer. Requirement of attending to needs of children would also require to be discounted as age of children is stated to be '21' and '16' by respondent and a provision could be made to petitioner to avail Video Conferencing during trial.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the wife to request the family court to avail video conferencing facility in trial. The Court further directed the family court to conclude the trial within three months and recorded the husband's undertaking to deposit three months' maintenance in lumpsum.

Background

The dispute stems from a matrimonial proceeding filed by the respondent-husband before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bengaluru Rural. The couple's marriage was solemnized on June 9, 2004 and two children were born from the wedlock. Later, due to matrimonial discord, the petitioner-wife resided separately in Bengaluru for the children's education.

Seeking the transfer of the case to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, the petitioner argued that the husband, at the time of filing the divorce proceedings, did not show her actual place of residence to harass her. She added that due to the 45 km travel from her home to court, the matter gets adjourned by the time she reaches there. On the grounds of travel, ill-health and irregular payment of interim maintenance by the husband, she sought transfer of the matrimonial proceedings.

Opposing the plea, the respondent-husband argued that the petition was filed five years after divorce proceedings were initiated in 2021, and after four years from her appearance in the case. He claimed that the present petition was filed to dilate proceedings. While disputing claims of irregular maintenance, the respondent submitted that a three-month period was fixed for conclusion of trial, he would deposit three months' maintenance in one lumpsum and fully cooperate without seeking adjournments.