In a significant judgment emphasizing the principle of gender neutrality and equitable consideration in legal proceedings, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of a matrimonial case. The court observed that the husband’s inconvenience as the primary caregiver for two minor children could not be overlooked, even while recognizing the challenges faced by women in marital disputes.
The case, Civil Petition No. 370 of 2024, was heard by Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. The petitioner, represented by Sri Murali B.S., requested the transfer of M.C. No. 7/2023 from the Senior Civil Judge’s Court in Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District, to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court in Hosanagara, Shivamogga District. The petitioner cited difficulties in traveling a distance of 130 kilometers to attend hearings.
The respondent-husband, represented by Sri Nagalingappa K., opposed the transfer, arguing that he was already facing considerable challenges in managing household responsibilities, including caring for their two young children aged 9 and 7, while attending court proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
1. Jurisdiction and Convenience:
Whether the petitioner-wife’s logistical difficulties justified transferring the case, considering the impact on the respondent-husband’s responsibilities.
2. Gender Neutrality in Law:
Balancing the rights and hardships of both genders, especially in family disputes, while promoting fairness and equity in legal outcomes.
3. Welfare of Minor Children:
Assessing the respondent’s claim that transferring the case would disrupt his ability to provide stable care for the children.
Key Observations of the Court
In its oral order dismissing the petition, the High Court made several important observations:
1. On Gender Equality:
“Constitutionally, a female has got equal rights as that of a male. Women are the primary victims in most situations, but that does not mean men are not affected by the cruelty of women. Equality should be in its truest sense and not at the expense of either gender.”
2. On Balancing Hardships:
The court noted that transferring the case to Hosanagara would disproportionately burden the respondent-husband, who was responsible for the care and upbringing of the couple’s children.
3. On Children’s Welfare:
Justice Sumalatha emphasized the importance of ensuring the well-being of minor children, noting that the father’s responsibilities in managing their care would be disrupted if the transfer were allowed.
4. On the Broader Implications of Equality:
“There is a necessity for a gender-neutral society… Equality should focus on fair treatment of both men and women in domestic and professional settings.”
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the transfer petition, holding that the balance of inconvenience weighed against the petitioner-wife’s request. The court concluded that the respondent-husband’s responsibilities, including caring for two school-going children, would make it significantly more difficult for him to attend hearings in a different jurisdiction.
