AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
In this civil petition, the petitioner who is the wife of respondent No. 1 has sought for transfer of M.C. 25/2009 filed by respondent No. 1 before the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Uadupi to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore.
The petitioner has stated that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 took place on 6/5/1990 at Udupi and that they have a son by name ''Shreyas'', who is aged about 19 years and is attending college; that the petitioner is working in the Postal Department and the respondent is a practicing advocate at Udupi. That the respondent has filed MC. 25/2009 before the Court of the Pri. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Udupi, seeking relief of divorce. A copy of the said petition is produced as Annexure "A" to this civil petition. The reason for seeking transfer of MC. 25/2009 according to the petitioner is that one Sri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Rao, Advocate at Udupi, was representing her and that he has retired from the case i.e., in MC. No. 25/2009. The petitioner apprehends that since respondent No. 1 is a practicing advocate at Udupi, he would exercise influence on the members of the Bar who would not extend their assistance to the petitioner and as a result, there would be lack of legal assistance that would prejudice the petitioner and therefore, under that apprehension, the petitioner has sought for transfer of MC. 25/2009 from the Udupi Court to a Court of a competent jurisdiction at Mangalore.
Statement of objections are filed to this petition seeking dismissal of the same.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the material on record.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is working in Postal Department at Manipal. Though MC. 25/2009 is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Udupi, the petitioner is seeking transfer of the said case to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore on account of the apprehension that the advocate appearing for her i.e., Sri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Rao has retired from the case since he has been threatened to retire from the case on due to the influence exercised by respondent No 1., who is the practicing advocate at Udupi. The petitioner is also under an apprehension that there would be no other advocate who would appear for her- from the Udupi Bar. It is also stated that presently one Sri Ranjan Rao, who is a practicing advocate at Mangalore has filed power for her and has accepted her brief and is appearing for her in MC. No. 25/2009. In view of the apprehension of the petitioner that she would not have any legal assistance in the matter, the petitioner has sought for a transfer of the case to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore.
In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on Goriparthi Gayatri Vs. Goripathi Srinivasa Rao, and (2005) 10 SCC 493 [Ravindra Singh Negi and Others v. Virendra Singh Negi and Another].
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated that the relief of transfer sought by the petitioner herein is frivolous; that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that Sri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Rao retired from the case on account of the influence exercised by respondent No. 1 on him is without any basis, It is only a bald allegation made by the petitioner herein that no advocate from Udupi Bar would assist the petitioner on account of the influence exercised or to be exercised by respondent No. 1. It is also stated that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner being imaginary, the relief sought by the petitioner herein in this civil petition cannot be granted.
In support of his case, he has relied upon an order passed by this Court in C.P. No. 80/2009 dated 14/9/2009 and a decision of the Apex Court reported in case of Jitendra Singh Vs. Bhanu Kumari and Others, .
Having regard to the pleadings and contentions of the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is a resident of Parakala and is working in Manipal, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Udupi, Though Sri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Rao has retired from the case and is no longer appearing for the petitioner herein in MC. No. 25/2009 as of now, it is not a case where there has been any refusal on the part of any advocate to appear for the petitioner in MC. No. 25/2009. On the other hand, an advocate from Mangalore, Sri Ranjan Rao has filed power for the petitioner in MC. No. 25/2009. Therefore, at this point of time, it cannot be said that there is no counsel who is rendering legal assistance to the petitioner in the case filed by the respondent herein before the court at Udupi.
In that view of the matter, this petition filed seeking transfer from the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Udupi to Mangalore to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore cannot be granted for the present. Therefore, the civil petition is dismissed, as there is no other ground made out for seeking transfer of the case from Udupi to Mangalore, However, the dismissal of this civil petition would not come in the way of the petitioner seeking such a relief in future if there are circumstances which would give rise to seeking such relief.
In view of the dismissal of the civil petition, I.A.I/2011 for stay, would not survive for consideration.