Dismissed¶45

Mrs. G. Roja v. Mr. Shridhara

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025CP/301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition, Section 24 CPC, wife seeks transfer of husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act restitution of conjugal rights case M.C.No.109/2025 from 1st Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga to Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, to try with Crl.Misc.62/2025; grounds: strange place, travel distance from Mangaluru; respondent served and unrepresented; petition DISMISSED; video conferencing participation permitted, Trial Judge to allow application; caution on consequences of refusing to join husband; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice V Srishananda; NC: 2025:KHC:42452; HC-KAR.

What did the court decide?

The transfer petition under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of M.C.No.109/2025 from Chitradurga to the Family Court, Mangaluru is dismissed. ¶45

Mrs. G. Roja Vs Mr. Shridhara — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42452 CP No. 301 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL PETITION No.301 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. G. ROJA D/O GURUMURTHY D.O W/O MR. SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-182/2, KSRP QUARTERS ROAD, PRAKASH SHETTY COMPOUND, ASAIGOLI POST, KONAJE, DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 199.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI JITHIN JEIJO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. SHRIDHARA S/O JAYAPPA Digitally AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, signed by R/AT 33, KURUBARAHALLI, MALATESH KURUBARAHALLI POST, K C CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA - 577 520. Location: HIGH COURT OF (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN M.C No.109/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 1^ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, TO THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA TO TRY THE MATTER ALONG WITH THE CRL. MISC. No.62/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:42452 CP No. 301 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Jithin Jeijo, learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner/wife.

¶24

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

¶25

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to transfer the case in M.C.No.109/2025 pending on the file of the Hon’ble 1^st Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, to the Hon’ble Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, to try the matter along with Crl.Misc.62/2025 pending on the file of the Hon’ble 1^st Addl. Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, by allowing this petition and grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity”

¶26

Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42452 CP No. 301 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Respondent/husband filed a petition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chithradurga, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the petitioner.

¶31

In the said case, petitioner/wife did not properly participate. The matter is now set down for passing the judgment. But for the stay order passed in the present petition, matter would have ended long back.

¶32

Petitioner is seeking transfer of the said case to the Family Court at Mangaluru on the ground that Chithradurga is a strange place for the petitioner.

¶33

It is also contended that petitioner cannot travel the distance from Mangaluru to Chithradurga for effectively participating in the pending matrimonial case.

¶34

Respondent/husband is served and unrepresented.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if the petitioner is

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:42452 CP No. 301 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

not willing to join the husband even after the order, consequences in law would follow.

¶40

Moreover, petitioner can appear through video

¶41

conferencing.

¶42

If any application is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking permission for participation in the proceedings through video conferencing, the learned Trial Judge shall allow the same.

¶43

With that observation, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition dismissed .

¶46

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶47

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Mrs. G. Roja v. Mr. Shridhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. G. Roja v. Mr. Shridhara

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

Uzma Sultana K Vs Mohammed Shahid

Smt. H T Lakshmi Devi Vs Smt. Venkatalakshmamma

Sri. Basavarajappa C Vs Sri. Chidhananda R

Smt. Suma N Vs Sri Satish M v

Sri P Syed Mahmood S/O Late Syed Pacha Saheb Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Smt. Shajiya K D Vs Sri. Riyaz Baig U