Dismissed¶39

Mr Shashidhar S v. Mrs Srilakshmi M

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025CP/152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 22-08-2025, CP No. 152 of 2025. Keywords: transfer of matrimonial proceedings; Sec. 24 Civil Procedure Code 1908; Sec. 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 – restitution of conjugal rights; Sec. 13(1)(i)(i-a) – dissolution for cruelty and desertion; M.C.No.52/2021 at Nanjangud; M.C.No.804/2021; wife's convenience paramount; conflicting-judgments argument rejected; parallel proceedings not a transfer ground; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In matrimonial matters, the settled principle is that the convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration; the respondent-wife, being a resident of Nanjangud, cannot have her choice of forum lightly interfered with. ¶38

Mr Shashidhar S Vs Mrs Srilakshmi M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32992 CP No. 152 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO.152 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SHASHIDHAR S S/O SHEKAR BABU, A AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT.NO.777, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, DEVAIAHUNDI MAIN ROAD, SRI. RAM PURA EXTENSION 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU - 560 034.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ANIL R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

MRS. SRILAKSHMI M D/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT #7189, K.H.B.COLONY, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI GAYAGENCY. MAHAMANE BACKSIDE, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. PREETHI G, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.52/2021 WHICH IS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, PENDING IN THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:32992 CP No. 152 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JMFC, AT NANJANGUD TO PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU; PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present petition is filed by the husband seeking to transfer M.C.No.52/2021 filed by the respondent - wife

¶27

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act', for short) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Nanjangud to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is represented by the counsel, there is no representation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner -husband has already filed M.C.No.804/2021 for Dissolution of Marriage under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is urged that respondent - wife instead of filing a counter claim to

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32992 CP No. 152 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the pending divorce petition, the respondent has chosen to file a separate petition at Nanjangud for restitution of conjugal rights. If the parallel proceedings are proceeded, there would be conflicting of judgments. It is further submitted that the distance between Nanjangud and Mysuru is only 40 kms and the respondent is already attending proceedings in Mysuru including a Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by her. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no inconvenience will be caused if her M.C. petition is also transferred to Mysuru.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the respondent - wife is residing at Nanjangud and has filed M.C.No.52/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the competent Court. The contention of the petitioner - husband that the wife ought to have filed a counter-claim in his pending divorce proceedings, cannot be accepted, as law permits each spouse to pursue independent remedies. Merely, because parallel proceedings are pending does not furnish a ground for transfer.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:32992 CP No. 152 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In matrimonial matters, the settled principle is

¶38

that the convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration. The respondent - wife being a resident of Nanjangud, her choice of forum cannot be lightly interfered with. The petitioner - husband has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances or prejudice that would justify transfer of her petition to Mysuru.

¶39

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and hence, dismissed .

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶42

MH/-

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mr Shashidhar S v. Mrs Srilakshmi M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shashidhar S v. Mrs Srilakshmi M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Umashankar Vs Smt. Pushpavathi

Sri. Chinnareddy Vs Sri. K v Srinivas

Sri Pramod Jain Vs Sri Ganapathi C Bakale

Shri. Venugopal Vs Shri. C. Srinivas

Dr. Shreya Mallesh Vs Dr. Niranjana P B

Smt.K. Joyce Vs Sri Naveen Godfrey H