Smt Shewtha v. Rajatha Madhyastha

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2025CP/291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CP No. 291 of 2025, Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 16.09.2025 — transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC; wife's convenience paramount; 450 km travel hardship with infant child; M.C. No. 222/2025 under Sections 13(1)(ia)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act 1955 moved from Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural to Family Court, Udupi; reliance on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (SC); appearance directed on 27.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Petition allowed; M.C. No. 222/2025 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Udupi; parties to appear before the Family Court at Udupi on 27.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. ¶order(ii)

Smt Shewtha Vs Rajatha Madhyastha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶order(ii)

Issue for consideration

Whether M.C. No. 222/2025 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural should be withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi, having regard to the hardship and inconvenience to the wife-petitioner.

¶1

Court's answer

Where transfer of matrimonial proceedings is sought under Section 24 CPC, the convenience of the wife is paramount rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The approximately 450 km journey from Shiroor to Bengaluru, coupled with the care and custody of a minor child aged about 1½ years, causes great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner-wife in effectively attending the proceedings at Bengaluru.

¶6

Key takeaways

The respondent-husband's offer to bear the petitioner's travel and incidental expenses cannot outweigh the hardship and inconvenience that would still be caused to her.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC by wife allowed — Matrimonial proceedings M.C. No. 222/2025 (dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi — Petitioner-wife, aged about 28 years, residing at Shiroor, Udupi District, has care and custody of a minor child aged about 1½ years; travel distance Shiroor–Bengaluru is around 450 km requiring a six-to-seven-hour overnight journey, causing great hardship — Cardinal principle: in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the convenience of the wife is paramount over the inconvenience to the husband — Husband's offer to bear travel and incidental expenses cannot outweigh the hardship — Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No. 4894/2022) — Parties directed to appear before the Family Court, Udupi on 27.10.2025 without waiting for further notice.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36765 CP No. 291 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO.291 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O RAJATHA MADHYASTHA, D/O SADASHVIA SHASTRI, R/A NO.1-25, GOLIBETTU, NO.33, SHIROOR, MUDDUMANE POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DIST.-576223.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

RAJATHA MADHYASTHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O RANGANATH MADHYASTHA, R/AT NO.339, 5^TH CROSS, ULLAL UPANAGARA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560056.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN MC NO.222/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT UDUPI.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:36765 CP No. 291 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband in M.C. No. 222/2025 under Sections 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (‘Act’ for short) seeking dissolution of marriage, pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru, to the Principal Judge, Udupi, Family Court, Udupi.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶27

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶29

the petitioner is residing at Golibettu, Muddumane Post, Shiroor. The travel distance between Shiroor to Bengaluru is around 450 kilometers and in order to reach Bengaluru petitioner has to undertake a journey involving two buses, which causes considerable hardship. It is further submitted that the petitioner has the care and custody of a

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:36765 CP No. 291 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

minor child, aged about 1½ years, making the travel of 450 kilometers even more difficult and inconvenient. It is contended that the request for transfer is bona fide.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent-husband is ready and willing to bear the travel and incidental expenses of the petitioner for attending the proceedings at Bengaluru. It is contended that the prayer of transfer made by the wife cannot be accepted, as allowing such transfer would caused inconvenience to the respondenthusband.

¶35

It is a cardinal principle underlying matrimonial cases that the convenience of the wife is paramount, rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband, when transfer of proceedings is sought under Section 24 of CPC.

¶36

In the instant case, the petitioner aged about 28 years has the care and custody of a minor child, aged

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:36765 CP No. 291 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

about 1½ years. The travel distance form Shiroor to Bengaluru is around 450 kilometers, which requires nearly six to seven hours of overnight journey . Such long travel, coupled with the responsibility of a young child, causes great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner in effectively attending the proceedings at Bengaluru.

¶41

Merely because the respondent-husband has offered to bear the petitioner’s travel and incidental expenses cannot outweigh the hardship and inconvenience that would still be caused to her. The Apex Court in the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik 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.

¶42