Smt Vidya S Kittur Vs Shri Sanganagouda M Kittur

SMT. VIDYA S. KITTUR W/O. SANGANAGOUDA M.KITTUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 05 BRUNDAVANA, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560062 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.370, 3^RD FLOOR, 4^TH ‘B’ MAIN MARUTHI LAYOUT, VASANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560061.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI MURALIDHAR S.R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

SHRI SANGANAGOUDA M.KITTUR S/O. MAHESHAGOUDA KITTUR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.970, SRI KRISHNA KUNJA ESHWAR NAGAR,2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE, RANIBENNUR, KARNATAKA-581115

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908., PRAYING TO

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:29766 CP No. 158 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

WITHDRAWING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.9/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT RANEBENNUR AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT BENGALURU TO CALL THE CASE IN MC NO.9/2025 ALONGWITH MC NO.2767/2024.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.09/2025, filed by the respondenthusband seeking divorce, pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur to the III Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru and tag along with M.C.No.2767/2024, filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

petitioner. Though the respondent is duly served, he has chosen to remain absent.

¶27

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:29766 CP No. 158 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

28.05.2003 as per customs prevailing in their community.

¶32

From the wedlock they have two daughters, who are in the care and custody of the petitioner. Due to un-cordial relationship they are residing separately for quite some time.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife has instituted M.C.No.2767/2024 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2024. Subsequently to the filing of her petition, the respondenthusband has now initiated M.C.No.09/2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur. It is further submitted that the petitioner residing at Bengaluru along with her two minor children and the travel distance from Bengaluru to Ranebennur is approximately 400 kilometers thereby causing inconvenience to the petitioner in attending the proceedings initiated by the respondenthusband.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:29766 CP No. 158 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the

¶38

case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha¹ (Aishwarya) has held at para No.9 which reads as under:

¶39

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶40

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:29766 CP No. 158 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The cardinal principle in matrimonial cases

¶45

where the wife seeks to invoke Section 24 of CPC, is the convenience of the wife than the inconvenience caused to the husband. Considering the petitioner is residing in Bengaluru along with her two minor children, the requirement to travel a distance of approximately 400 kilometers to attend the proceedings at Ranebennur initiated by husband causes inconvenience to the wife.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the

¶47

following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The Civil Petition is allowed.

¶50

ii. M.C.No.09/2025 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur is withdrawn and transferred to III Additional Principal Judge Family Court at Bengaluru and to be tried along with M.C.No.2767/2024.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:29766 CP No. 158 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the III Additional Principal Judge Family Court at Bengaluru on 21.08.2025 without waiting for further notice.

¶55

iv. Since the respondent is not present before this Court, in the event he does not appear before the Family court on the said date, the concerned Court to take appropriate steps/course.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

____________________

¶58

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶59

AT

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt Vidya S Kittur v. Shri Sanganagouda M Kittur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vidya S Kittur v. Shri Sanganagouda M Kittur

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

Sri S L Rajesh Vs Sri Suresh T Hegade

Sri. Shivanna Vs Smt. Savithramma

Smt. Susmitha P Vs Sri Abhishek C C

Smt. Lolakshi S @ Kumuda, Vs Santhosh M Naik

Smt. Kaveri Vs Sri Santosh Kumar

Smt. Deepashree T.C. Vs Sri H G Kotreshappa Chakrasali