Allowed¶48

Smt. Priyanka. v. R. v Sri. Madhuniranjan Swamy. M. S.

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2025CP/219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CP No.219 of 2025 | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru | Justice K.S. Hemalekha | order dated 04.09.2025 | transfer of matrimonial case under Section 24 CPC | M.C.No.25/2024 moved from Family Court, Tumkur to Family Court, Hassan | wife's convenience prevails; husband resident in Canada; ~120 km travel hardship to wife | related Section 125 CrPC, 1973 maintenance claim at Hassan | relied on: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 (Apex Court) | parties to appear 10.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil petition allowed; M.C.No.25/2024 withdrawn from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur and transferred to the Family Court at Hassan; parties directed to appear before the Family Court at Hassan on 10.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. ¶48

Smt. Priyanka. v. R. Vs Sri. Madhuniranjan Swamy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether M.C.No.25/2024 (dissolution-of-marriage petition filed by the respondent-husband) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur should be withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Hassan, having regard to the convenience of the wife-petitioner rather than any inconvenience to the husband (who resides in Canada).

¶24

Court's answer

This court states the governing principle: in matrimonial cases where the wife seeks a transfer, the convenience of the wife prevails over the inconvenience that would be caused to the husband (adopting the Apex Court's holding in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No.4894/2022, that the wife's convenience must generally be looked at in transfers under Section 24 CPC).

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The transfer petition is allowed: the petitioner-wife resides at Hassan and frequent travel of around 120 km to Tumkur would cause great hardship; the respondent-husband resides abroad in Canada, his place of residence being outside India makes the venue of trial within Karnataka largely immaterial to him, so transferring the case to Hassan causes him no hardship; therefore M.C.No.25/2024 is withdrawn from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur and transferred to the Family Court at Hassan.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of matrimonial case — wife's convenience paramount (Section 24 CPC): The High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru) allowed the wife's civil petition and ordered withdrawal of M.C.No.25/2024 (the husband's dissolution-of-marriage petition) from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur to the Family Court at Hassan. The petitioner-wife resides at Hassan and travel of around 120 km to Tumkur would cause great hardship; the respondent-husband resides in Canada, making the venue of trial largely immaterial to him. Relying on the Apex Court's decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No.4894/2022), the court held that the cardinal principle is the convenience of the wife rather than the inconvenience to the husband. Parties directed to appear before the Family Court at Hassan on 10.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Bench: K.S. Hemalekha, J. Oral order dated 04.09.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:34993 CP No. 219 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 219 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRIYANKA. V. R. D/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO. 98, WARD NO. 16 RAJKUMAR NAGARA HASSAN - 573 202.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. LINGARAJU K.R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI. MADHUNIRANJAN SWAMY M.S, S/O SHIVANNA P AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO. 48, MAHAVEERA NILAYA OPP., SIDDARUDA MATT AMARA JYOTHI NAGARA MARALURU POST, TUMKUR - 572 102.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.25/2024, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:34993 CP No. 219 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TUMKUR TO FAMILY COURT AT HASSAN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶21

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 to withdraw M.C.No.25/2024 initiated by the respondent - husband for dissolution of marriage pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur and transfer the same to the Family Court at Hassan.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.07.2021 as per the customs prevailing in their community. Due to uncordial relationship, they have been residing separately for quite sometime.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Hassan and has instituted Criminal

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:34993 CP No. 219 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Miscellaneous under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance before the Hassan Court. The respondent - husband has filed the petition for divorce at Tumkuru. The travel distance between Hassan to Tumkur is around 120 kilometres and frequent travel over such a distance would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent - husband is residing at Canada, therefore no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the respondent if the case is transferred to Hassan.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly

¶33

submits that the husband is indeed residing at Canada.

¶34

The cardinal principle involving in matrimonial cases where the wife seeks for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the convenience of the wife rather than the inconvenience that would be caused to the husband.

¶35

The Apex Court in the case of

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:34993 CP No. 219 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sha¹ (Aishwarya) has held that the ends of justice should demand the transfer and, given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm, generally the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering a transfer under Section 24 of CPC, in matrimonial matters Courts must weigh the economic and social circumstances of the parties. Thus, the cardinal principle is the convenience of the wife than the inconvenience caused to the husband.

¶41

This court notes that the petitioner is residing at Hassan; the travel distance between Hassan to Tumkur is around 120 kilometers. The admitted position is that the respondent - husband is residing at abroad in Canada. His place of residence being outside India makes the venue of trial within Karnataka largely immaterial to him and no hardship would be caused to him by transferring the case to Hassan. On the other hand, if the petition for transfer is not allowed, great inconvenience and hardship will be caused to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition needs to be allowed and this court pass the following:

¶42