The Karnataka High Court refused to transfer a maintenance case at the request of a husband, observing that the fact that his mother was a widowed aged lady and dependent on him was not sufficient ground to shift the case from a family court in Chikkamagaluru to another in Bengaluru where he resided. The husband had filed a petition seeking transfer of the maintenance proceedings which were pending before the family court in Chikkamagaluru, arguing that he lived in Bengaluru and that travel for each date of hearing was burdensome given that his mother needed his care and support. He contended that the transfer was necessary because of his personal circumstances, including his responsibility towards his widowed mother and his own injury from an accident. The bench presiding over the matter, led by Judge Shivashankar Amarannavar, examined these contentions but noted that the convenience of the wife was paramount in matters of transfer of maintenance proceedings and that shifting the case as sought by the petitioner would cause inconvenience to the respondent-wife who resided in Chikkamagaluru and would have to travel to Bengaluru if the case were moved.
The court observed that there was no order for interim maintenance by the family court in Chikkamagaluru at that stage and that the wife did not seek interim maintenance, further reducing the basis for altering the venue. It was highlighted that the suitability of the court venue should primarily take into account the convenience of the party seeking maintenance, especially where the respondent would be adversely affected by a transfer. The judges underscored that the mere dependency of the petitioner’s widowed mother on him did not constitute sufficient justification for relocation of the proceedings given the specific context of the maintenance case and the potential hardship to the respondent. The husband’s additional argument concerning his injury and difficulty in travel was addressed, but the court noted that this issue was not included as a ground in the transfer petition, and consequently it could not be treated as a valid reason for transfer. After examining all submissions, the bench concluded that no grounds were made out to transfer the maintenance case as sought by the husband and accordingly dismissed his plea, emphasizing that the procedural posture and the obligations of parties in maintenance matters required a balanced consideration of convenience and fairness to both spouses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.