Dismissed¶43

Smt. Suma N v. Sri Satish M v

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025CP/289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial petition; Section 24 CPC transfer petition by wife; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act restitution of conjugal rights; M.C.No.55/2025 Mandya to V Addl. Family Court Bengaluru; threat to wife's life; custody of minor son; no source of income; video conferencing participation in trial proceedings directed to be allowed; respondent served and unrepresented; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; CP No. 289 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:42448; V Srishananda J; transfer petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer cannot be granted because, having regard to the pendency of cases at Bengaluru, the case would get disposed of effectively before the Mandya Court at an early point of time. ¶35

Smt. Suma N Vs Sri Satish M v — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether M.C.No.55/2025, the husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, should be withdrawn and transferred to the V Addl. Family Court at Bengaluru on the grounds of threat to the wife's life from the respondent and his family members, her custody of the minor son studying III Standard at Bengaluru, and her lack of source of income.

¶26

Court's answer

Transfer cannot be granted because, having regard to the pendency of cases at Bengaluru, the case would get disposed of effectively before the Mandya Court at an early point of time.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Transfer cannot be granted because the video conferencing facility is now available, by which the petitioner/wife can avail the facility effectively and successfully participate in the proceedings at the Mandya Court.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the petitioner/wife files an application seeking permission to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing, the learned Trial Judge at Mandya is directed to allow the said application.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition (CP No. 289 of 2025, NC: 2025:KHC:42448, decided 25-10-2025, V Srishananda J, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru) filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking withdrawal of M.C.No.55/2025 - the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya - and its transfer to the V Addl. Family Court at Bengaluru, on the grounds of threat to her life from the respondent and his family members, her custody of the minor son studying III Standard at Bengaluru, and her having no source of income. Respondent served and unrepresented. Petition DISMISSED: (i) the case would be disposed of effectively before the Mandya Court at an early point of time having regard to the pendency of cases at Bengaluru; (ii) the video conferencing facility being now available, the petitioner/wife can effectively and successfully participate in the Mandya proceedings. The Trial Judge at Mandya is directed to allow the petitioner's application, if filed, for participation through video conferencing.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42448 CP No. 289 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CIVIL PETITION No.289 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUMA N W/O SATISH M.V, D/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.182, GROUND FLOOR, S-LIG, 16^TH BLOCK, 5^TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI KUMAR M D, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI SATISH M V S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.2032, 5^TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA-571 401

¶14

Digitally R/AT NO.2032, 5^TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR, signed by KALLAHALLI, MALATESH MANDYA-571 401 K C …RESPONDENT Location: (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) HIGH COURT OF THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO WITH DRAW THE PETITION BEING M.C.No.55/2025 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE V ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:42448 CP No. 289 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri Kumar M.D., learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the following prayer:

¶23

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

¶24

Withdraw the petition being M.C.No.55/2025 which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya to transfer the same to the V Addl. Family Court at Bengaluru, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Respondent/husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya.

¶26

Petitioner/wife has sought for transfer of the said petition from Mandya to Bengaluru on the ground that there is threat to her life from the respondent and his family members. She has further contended that she is having the custody of her minor

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42448 CP No. 289 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

son who is studying III Standard at Bengaluru. It is also

¶31

contended that she has no source of income.

¶32

Respondent/husband is served and unrepresented.

¶33

As such, this Court heard the learned counsel for petitioner/wife.

¶34

Petition relief cannot be granted on two grounds.

¶35

Firstly, case gets disposed of effectively before the Mandya Court at an early point of time having regard to the pendency of the cases at Bengaluru.

¶36

Secondly, since the video conferencing facility is now available, petitioner/wife can avail the said facility effectively and, successfully participate in the proceedings at Mandya Court.

¶37

If an application is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking permission to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing, learned Trial Judge at Mandya is hereby directed to allow the said application.

¶38