Komala Vs T Nagaraj

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.379/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOW PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF FAMILY COURT, AT DAVANAGERE TO THE BEFORE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CRL.MISC.1514/2024, 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

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:35979 CP No. 214 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.379/2024, initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking dissolution of marriage pending on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, where Criminal Miscellaneous No.1514/2024 is pending adjudication.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.02.2018, as per the customs prevailing in their community. From the wedlock, two children are born, who are in care and custody of the petitioner. Due to un-cordial relationship they are residing separately for quite some time.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:35979 CP No. 214 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

the petitioner is residing at Chitradurga along with her two minor children, aged about seven and four years. She has also initiated proceedings under Sections 12 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1514/2024, which is pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga. The travel distance between Chitradurga and Davanagere is approximately 60 kilometers one way, which entails considerable travel and causes undue hardship and great inconvenience to the petitioner in attending the proceedings initiated by her husband at Davanagere.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶34

submits that distance between Chitradurga and Davanagere is hardly 60 kilometers and therefore, there is no real impediment for the petitioner to travel and attend the proceedings at Davanagere. It is further submitted that there exists a threat to the respondent’s life if he is

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:35979 CP No. 214 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

compelled to attend the proceedings at Chitradurga, and hence, the case instituted by him ought not to be transferred to the Court at Chitradurga.

¶39

It is a cardinal principle in matrimonial matters, particularly when a wife invokes Section 24 of CPC, that the convenience of the wife is to be given precedence over the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. Though learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there exists a threat to the respondent-husband’s life if the case is transferred to Chitradurga, no material has been placed on record to substantiate such apprehension. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that Criminal Miscellaneous No.1514/2024 instituted by the petitioner is already pending consideration before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga.

¶40

The petitioner is residing at Chitradurga along

¶41

with her two minor children, aged about seven and four years. The travel distance about 60 kilometers between

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:35979 CP No. 214 of 2025

¶43

5 -

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Chitradurga and Davanagere entails considerable hardship

¶46

and inconvenience to her in prosecuting parallel proceedings.

¶47

In similar circumstances, 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:

¶48

“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

¶49

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35979 CP No. 214 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

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.”

¶53

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The Civil Petition is allowed.

¶57

ii. M.C.No.379/2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga and to be tried along with Crl.Misc.1514/2024.

¶58

iii. The parties shall appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga on 23.10.2025 without awaiting for further notice.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶61

AT

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Komala v. T Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komala v. T Nagaraj

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. Balakrishna T Vs State of Karnataka

Mr K v Ambarish Vs Mr P Rajendran

S. P. Poornima Vs N. Jagadeesh

Smt N Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt Poornima Rajani

Smt Honnamma R Vs Sri Nagaraj K R

Smt Kruthika Vs Sri Sunil Kini