Smt. Kaveri Vs Sri Santosh Kumar

SRI SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O. LATE BANGERYA MADIVAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.151, S1, VISHAL GANESH APARTMENT, 11^TH ‘B’ CROSS, 30^TH MAIN, NEAR BESCOM, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU- 560078.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION IN MC NO.7530/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:29767 CP No. 171 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BENGALURU TO THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BANAHATTI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking for transfer of M.C.No.7530/2024 pending on the file of VI Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, Bagalkot District and call along with Crl.Misc.No.200/2022 filed by the wife seeking maintenance for herself and her child is pending adjudication.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 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 12.02.2016 as per customs prevailing in their community.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29767 CP No. 171 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

From the wedlock they have one minor son, who is in the

¶31

care and custody of the petitioner. Due to un-cordial relationship they are residing separately for quite some time.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶33

the petitioner and her minor son are residing at Banahatti and she has instituted Crl.Misc.No.200/2022 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti seeking maintenance for herself and her son. The respondent has now initiated M.C.No.7530/2024 seeking divorce before the VI Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru. It is submitted that the travel distance from Banahatti to Bengaluru is around 560 kilometers causing inconvenience to the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband.

¶34

In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:29767 CP No. 171 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Sha¹ (Aishwarya) has held at para No.9 which reads as under:

¶40

“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 socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶41

The cardinal principle in matrimonial cases

¶42

where the wife seeks to invoke Section 24 of CPC, is the

¶43

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29767 CP No. 171 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

convenience of the wife than the inconvenience caused to the husband. In the present case as this Court noticed that the petitioner has already initiated Crl.Misc.No.200/2022 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti seeking maintenance for herself and her son even before the M.C.No.7530/2024 was initiated by the respondenthusband. The travel distance between Banahatti and Bengaluru is more than 560 kilometers causing inconvenience to the petitioner-wife. The petitioner is also having a minor son, who is studying in 3^rd standard in Banahatti and there is no maintenance even awarded to the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.200/2022.

¶47

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the

¶48

following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The Civil Petition is allowed.

¶51

ii. M.C.No.7530/2024 pending on the file of VI Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru is withdrawn and transferred

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:29767 CP No. 171 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, Bagalkot District and to be tried along with Crl.Misc.200/2022.

¶56

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, Bagalkot District on 12.08.2025 without waiting for further notice.

¶57

iv. Since 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.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶60

AT

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Smt. Kaveri v. Sri Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaveri v. Sri Santosh Kumar

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 Vidya S Kittur Vs Shri Sanganagouda M Kittur

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