Smt. Leelavati vs Sri. Prasad Hombal

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent.

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She has maintained this petition under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer M.C.No.169/2026 pending on the file of learned Principal Family Court, Hubballi to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Koppal. The respondent has maintained the said petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of the marriage.

The petitioner submits that presently she is residing at Koppal, which is at a distance of approximately 150 kms from Hubballi. She further submits that she is working in a small private sector with meager source of income. Hence, she contends that she is unable to bear the recurring costs of travel and other expenses of attending the proceedings before the Court at Hubballi. She contends that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if M.C. No.169/2026 is transferred from the Court at Hubballi to the Court in Koppal District. Hence, she prays for an order accordingly.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer of the petition on the ground that the respondent is suffering from locomotor disability and that he is having 45% permanent disability in his right lower limb. He further submitted that presently the respondent is not doing any work and depends on the pension for physically disabled persons for his survival.

The document produced before the Court by the learned Counsel for the Respondent prima facie supports the above contention. The said document goes to show that the disability certificate has been issued by Issuing Medical Authority, Dharwad. Further, it certifies that the respondent herein namely Sri Prasad Hombal, S/o Sri Adiveppa, is suffering from locomotor disability and he has got 45% permanent disability to his right lower limb.

Admittedly, the petitioner is doing some job even if it is in a small private sector with meager source of income. Whereas, the respondent claims that he has no job and that he is leading his life on the pension for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner has not placed any document before the Court either to show that the respondent is in better financial condition or that the contention of the respondent is incorrect. Hence, taking into consideration the relevant factors, this Court holds that the petitioner has not made out any valid ground to allow the petition.

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

The Civil Petition is dismissed.

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.