Dismissed¶¶35

Smt. Kavita Belagali @ Kavita Athani v. Shri. Basavaraj

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025CP/179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; CP No. 179 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:7548; transfer petition under Section 24 CPC; M.C.No.65/2022; Principal Senior Civil Judge Jamkhandi to Family Court Davanagere; dissolution of marriage; restitution of conjugal rights decree under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act not complied with; wife's convenience versus husband's inconvenience; Dharwad as intermediate venue rejected by petitioner; petition dismissed on 20-02-2025 by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha.

What did the court decide?

While the convenience of the petitioner, being a woman, is to be taken care of, the inconvenience of the respondent-husband must also be looked into; both parties appear interested in prolonging the litigation rather than settling. ¶¶33

Smt. Kavita Belagali @ Kavita Athani Vs Shri… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7548 CP No. 179 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 179 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KAVITA BELAGALI @ KAVITA ATHANI W/O. BASAVARAJ ATHANI, D/O. ASHOK BELGALI, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC : GOVT. SERVICE, R/O CDPO OFFICE, OPP. DURGAMBIKA SCHOOL, BUS STOP, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 570 004.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SOWKHYA PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O VIRUPAKSHA ATHANI, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. HANNUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587 301.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO WITHDRAW M.C.65/2022 FROM THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT DAVANAGERE FOR THE

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7548 CP No. 179 of 2024

¶17

PURPOSE OF TRAIL AND DISPOSAL AND COST OF THE PETITION BE AWARDED.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard Ms.Sowkhya Patil, learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner as well as Sri.Sagar V. Shastri, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

This is a petition filed seeking the Court to transfer M.C.No.65/2022 which is pending before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi to Family Court, Davanagere.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent entered into wedlock which resulted in birth of two children. The said children are residing with the petitioner at present. Due to disputes that arose between them, they are residing separately. The petitioner is a Supervisor in Anganwadi Centre. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was allowed. However, the petitioner could not join the respondent. Thereafter, the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:7548 CP No. 179 of 2024

¶27

respondent filed a petition i.e. M.C.No.65/2022 seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage. The said case is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The petitioner is facing much difficulty in attending the Court on each and every date of adjournment and therefore she moved the transfer petition seeking the Court to transfer the case from Jamkhandi to Davanagere.

¶28

The submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is also a Government servant and he is a teacher by profession. Though the respondent tried for amicable settlement of the matter, the petitioner did not come forward. Learned counsel further states that Dharwad is located between Davanagere and Jamkhandi and therefore it would be convenient for both the parties to appear there.

¶29

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not agreeable for transfer of the case to Dharwad.

¶30

By the submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner has not obliged

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:7548 CP No. 179 of 2024

¶33

the decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights. Further more, the case i.e., M.C.No.65/2022 whose transfer is sought is pending since more than three years. The petitioner is not agreeable to transfer the case to the Court at Dharwad, which is convenient even to the respondent. Though the convenience of the petitioner being a woman is to be taken care of, the inconvenience of the respondent-husband should also be looked into. By the submission made by both the counsel it appears that both the parties are interested in prolonging the litigation than for settlement. Even the place to transfer the case which is located between the place where both parties resides is not agreeable to the petitioner.

¶34

Having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that the present petition cannot be entertained.

¶35

Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶37

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt. Kavita Belagali @ Kavita Athani v. Shri. Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavita Belagali @ Kavita Athani v. Shri. Basavaraj

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

Smt K Varalakshmi @ Varalakshmi Vs Sri H C Swamy

N. Jagadish Vs Kiran .S

Smt Meghana C K Vs Mr Harish B C

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs Sri. Thousif

Mr Kowshik B R Vs Smt Seema G S

Smt. Manjula C Vs Sri. Prathap Babu D M