Anitha G M Vs Prakash Rao B N

ANITHA G.M. W/O PRAKASH RAO .B.N D/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, MAHADEVAIAH BADAVANE, SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577428. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PRAKASH RAO B.N. S/O NARAYAN RAO B.R. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.15, GROUND FLOOR, MUDA EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, 6/4^TH MAIN ROAD, K BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNAGARA, MYSORE-570022. …RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER FOR TRANSFER M.C.NO.1188/2024 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, MYSURU TO THE FAMILY COURT AT SHIKARIPURA AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS COURTS DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:36763 CP No. 119 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The present petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking to withdraw and transfer MC 1188/2024 instituted

¶23

by the respondent-husband by invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short ‘the Act’), for restitution of conjugal rights, pending on the file of the Principal Family Judge, Mysuru, to the Family Court at Shikaripura.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Though the respondent is served with the notice he has chosen to remain absent.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

petitioner is residing at Shikaripura along with her minor child, who is now aged about 3½ years. The travel distance from Shikaripura to Mysuru is approximately 307 kilometers one way, and such long travel would cause serious hardship and inconvenience and difficulty to the

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:36763 CP No. 119 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

petitioner in attending the proceedings initiated by her husband at Mysuru.

¶32

In matrimonial proceedings where the wife

¶33

seeks to transfer proceeding by invoking section 24 of CPC, the settled proposition of law is the convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband.

¶34

The Apex Court in the case of

¶35

N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik

¶36

Sha¹ (Aishwarya) has held that the ends of justice should demand the transfer and, given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm, generally the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering a transfer under Section 24 of CPC, in matrimonial matters Courts must weigh the economic and social circumstances of the parties. Thus, the cardinal principle is the convenience of the wife than the inconvenience caused to the husband.

¶37

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36763 CP No. 119 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

6. The marriage between the petitioner and

¶41

respondent was solemnized on 17.05.2021. The couple is blessed with a child, who is now aged about 3½ years and is under the care and custody of the petitioner. Due to uncordial relationship they are residing separately for quite sometime. The respondent-husband has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The petitioner has also filed Crl. Misc. 28/2025 at Shikaripura. The petitioner is residing at Shikaripura. The travel distance between Shikaripura to Mysuru is approximately 307 kilometers one way and such distance would cause substantial hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner in attending the proceedings at Mysuru, particularly having regard to the fact that she has to take care of her minor child.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Civil Petition is allowed.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:36763 CP No. 119 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(ii) MC 1188/2024 is withdrawn from the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru and transferred to the Family Court at Shikaripura.

¶49

(iii) Petitioner to appear before the Family Court at Shikaripura on 23.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. (iv) Since the respondent has not entered appearance, in the event he does not appear before the concerned Court, the Court to take appropriate course/steps in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶52

CKL

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Anitha G M v. Prakash Rao B N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha G M v. Prakash Rao B N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Clotilda Almeida Vs Mr. Vincy Deepchand D Souza

Smt Shruthi Jain D Vs Sri Abhishek Parak v

Smt. Grantham Lakshmi Venkatesha Vs Sri. Grantham Venkatesha

Smt Shewtha Vs Rajatha Madhyastha

Vani S Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Shakila Khanum Vs Sri Shoukath Pasha