Smt. Kavya C, Vs Sri. Sathish C a

SRI. SATHISH C A S/O ELUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5, 6 AND 10, 1^ST CROSS, VEERANNAPALYA RAILWAY GATE, BENGALURU - 560 045. AND ALSO R/AT CHIKKANAVANGALA TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 145.

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:37047 CP No. 208 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-SATHISH C A SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS CIVIL PETITION BY ORDERING TO WITHDRAW THE PENDING CASE IN MC 3450/24 PENDING BEFORE THE V ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU AND BE PLEASED TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TARIKERE FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to

¶23

withdraw M.C.No.3450/2024, instituted by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage, pending on the file of V Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and transfer the same to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarikere.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:37047 CP No. 208 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶29

petitioner is presently residing at Tarikere. She has studied only upto 11th standard, and therefore, undertaking frequent travel is not feasible. The travel distance between Tarikere and Bengaluru is approximately 270 kilometres. Regular travel to attend the proceedings at Bangalore would cause her great hardship and inconvenience. It is submitted that though the respondent-husband was also residing at Tarikere, with an intention to harass the petitioner, he has chosen to institute the matrimonial case at Bangalore, thereby compelling the petitioner to undertake avoidable travel.

¶30

Though the notice was served, respondent has chosen to remain absent. Hence no representation.

¶31

It is the cardinal principle governing in matrimonial case that when the wife seeks transfer of proceedings, by invoking Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the paramount consideration of the

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:37047 CP No. 208 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Court is her convenience, rather than the inconvenience

¶36

that may be caused to the husband.

¶37

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 07.06.2020 as per the customs prevailing in their community. Owing to an uncordial relationship, the parties are residing separately for quite sometime.

¶38

7 . In the present case, the petitioner is presently residing at Tarikere, travel distance between Tarikere and Bengaluru is approximately 270 kilometres one way, frequent and long travel to attend the proceedings at Bengaluru causes undue hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner.

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik 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

¶41

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37047 CP No. 208 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

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.”

¶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.3450/2024 pending on the file of V Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court,

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37047 CP No. 208 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Bengaluru is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarikere.

¶55

iii. The parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarikere, on 28.10.2025 without waiting for further notice.

¶56

iv. Since the respondent has not appeared before the Court, in the event he does not appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarikere, the concerned Court to take appropriate steps/course.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶59

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Kavya C, v. Sri. Sathish C a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavya C, v. Sri. Sathish C a

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

Anitha G M Vs Prakash Rao B N

Smt Shewtha Vs Rajatha Madhyastha

Vani S Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Kruthika Vs Sri Sunil Kini

Kavya M Vs Rudresh C G

Smt. Najma Banu Vs Sri Mohammed Khalandar @ Syed Khalandar