CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › Kavitha Pavan Tibile v. Pavan H Tibile

Kavitha Pavan Tibile v. Pavan H Tibile

Supreme Court of India · 4 January 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
4 January 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 92-93 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.92-93 OF 2017

[ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.5804-5805 OF 2016]

KAVITHA PAVAN TIBILE APPELLANT VERSUS

PAVAN H TIBILE RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before us, aggrieved by the impugned judgment whereby the prayer made by the appellant for transfer of Divorce Case M.C. No.44 of 2015 from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hukkeri to Family Court, Bangalore was declined.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, we are of the view that it is for the better convenience of both the parties to have all the matters tried at Bangalore.

4. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and M.C. No.44 of 2015, which was transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hukkeri and got renumbered as M.C. No.232 of 2015 is transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court Hubbali to Family Court, Bangalore.

5. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the statements made by the appellant before the High Court.

6. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGMENT

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 04, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about Kavitha Pavan Tibile v. Pavan H Tibile

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp