Dismissed¶31

Hema v. Shrinath G T

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025CP/259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, CP No. 259 of 2024 (NC: 2025:KHC:1341), decided 15-01-2025 by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. Section 24 CPC transfer petition; M.C.No.60/2024 (restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent-husband) pending before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sagara; transfer sought to Senior Civil Judge, Soraba; both in Shivamogga district; 50 Kms distance held to be neither convincing nor justifiable ground / insufficient cause; petition dismissed; respondent served but did not appear; Sri Parameswaraiah D. C. for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The power granted under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised without there being sufficient cause or justifiable reason. ¶28

Hema Vs Shrinath G T — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1341 CP No. 259 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 259 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HEMA, W/O. SRINATH G. T. D/O. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, KANUBAILU VILLAGE, MALALAGADDE POST, ULAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 429.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAIAH D. C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHRINATH G. T., Digitally signed by S/O THIMMAPPA, AASEEFA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PARVEEN OCC: AGRICULTURIST, Location: HIGH GIJAGARU VILLAGE, COURT OF YADAJIGALEMANE POST, KARNATAKA SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 470 002.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶14

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND TRANSFER THE M.C NO. 60/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC SAGARA TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC SORABA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:1341 CP No. 259 of 2024

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri.Parameswaraiah.D.C, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent did not choose to appear, though notice was served upon him.

¶21

This is a petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking the Court to transfer M.C.No.60/2024 which is pending before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sagara to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Soraba.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶23

the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. As the respondent was ill-treating her, she left the matrimonial home and is residing with her parents at Kanubailu village. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition is

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:1341 CP No. 259 of 2024

¶26

pending before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sagara. The distance between Kanubailu village and Sagara is about 50 Kms and the petitioner who is aged about 22 years at present is unable to travel such distance alone. Therefore, she filed the present petition for transfer of the case.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the place where the

¶28

case is pending at present i.e., Sagara and the place to which transfer is sought for i.e., Soraba are located in the same district i.e., Shivamogga. The petitioner seeks to transfer the case from Sagara to Soraba. The petitioner resides at Kanubailu village which is also located in the Shivamogga district. The ground projected is that the petitioner being a woman aged about 22 years is unable to travel 50 Kms to attend the Court. Such a reason is neither convincing nor justifiable. The settled proposition of law is that the power granted under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised without there being sufficient cause or justifiable reason. The petitioner failed

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1341 CP No. 259 of 2024

¶30

to project such cause so as to exercise the power granted under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is not the case that the petitioner has to travel hundreds of kilometers. The distance as projected in the petition itself from her place to the place where the case is pending is about 50 Kms. This Court is of the view that the petitioner will not face such great hardship to travel a distance of 50 Kms. Only on the dates of hearing, she is required to attend the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to effect transfer of the case as sought for.

¶31

5. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed .

¶32

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶33

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Hema v. Shrinath G T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hema v. Shrinath G T

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. Divyashree P Vs Jayaram K

R D Dhaneshwari @ Geetha Vs R S Dinesh Kumar

Smt Pooja Patil Vs Sri Venkat Reddy

Smt T Shrenika Shashvath Vs Sri Karthik D

Mrs. Apoorvi S Padaval Vs Mr.B.C. Shankar Jadhav

Aishwaryabai K H Vs Shashi Kumar v