Disposed¶48

Smt Navyashree B K v. Sri S Puneeth

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025CP/327/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Civil Petition No. 327 of 2025; Justice V Srishananda; order dated 25-11-2025; Section 24 CPC transfer petition by wife Navyashree B K; transfer of divorce petition M.C.No.3141/2025 from II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court Bengaluru to Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya; video conferencing participation; territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue; geographical distance and financial incapacity no longer valid transfer parameters; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No transfer ordered; the Civil Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to urge territorial jurisdiction before the Family Court, Bangalore as a preliminary issue and to appear through video conferencing, which the Trial Judge shall permit on her application. ¶48

Smt Navyashree B K Vs Sri S Puneeth — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether M.C.Petition No.3141/2025 (divorce petition) pending before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru should be transferred to the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya District. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid parameters for transfer of a pending case from one court to another in view of the video conferencing facility; on that basis the court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The question of territorial jurisdiction is to be urged by the wife before the Family Court, Bangalore in the pending matrimonial case M.C.No.3141/2025 as a preliminary issue.

¶37

Key takeaways

If the Family Court opines that no part of the cause of action took place at Bangalore, the divorce petition will necessarily be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.obiter¶38
If the petitioner files an application before the Family Court at Bangalore to appear through video conferencing and effectively participate in the proceedings, the Trial Judge shall permit the wife to do so.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Wife's petition under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the husband's divorce petition M.C.No.3141/2025 from the Family Court, Bengaluru to the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya District, disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent. The court held that geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid parameters for transfer of a pending case in view of the video conferencing facility; directed that the territorial jurisdiction objection be urged by the wife before the Family Court, Bangalore as a preliminary issue (indicating rejection for want of jurisdiction if no part of the cause of action arose at Bangalore); and directed that the Trial Judge shall permit the wife to appear and participate through video conferencing on her application.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48950 CP No. 327 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO. 327 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT NAVYASHREE B K W/O PUNEETH S, D/O KADA BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, GORAVANAHALLI ROAD, MADDUR, MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 401

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI S PUNEETH S/O SUNDAR S, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO. J2203, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, MANTRI SERENITY APARTMENT, SUBRAMANYAPURA, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48950 CP No. 327 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF M.C. PETITION NO.3141/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU TO THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT, THEN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET WITH.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

The wife has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the CPC with the following prayer:

¶26

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased pass an appropriate order for transfer of M.C.Petition No.3141/2025 filed by the petitioner presently pending before the IInd Addl, Principal Judge family Court at Bengaluru to the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya District, then the ends of justice would be met with."

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48950 CP No. 327 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:

¶30

A petition for divorce came to be filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.3141/2025 on account of the strained matrimonial relationship between the parties.

¶31

The wife is residing at Maddur. She also contends that the husband is also a resident of Maddur and the parties last lived as husband and wife at Maddur. Thus, no part of cause of action has taken place in Bangalore and the filing of the divorce petition on the file of the Family Court, Bangalore, is only to harass the petitioner-wife on account of the geographical distance as well as the financial incapacity.

¶32

Therefore, she sought for the transfer of the petition from the Family Court, Bangalore, to Maddur.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:48950 CP No. 327 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

This court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent in view of the fact that geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid parameters for the transfer of a pending case from one court to another court in view of the video conferencing facility.

¶37

Further, the question of jurisdiction is a matter that is to be urged by the wife before the Family Court, Bangalore, in the pending matrimonial case in M.C.No.3141/2025 as a preliminary issue.

¶38

If the court is of the opinion that no part of cause of action has taken place at Bangalore, necessarily the petition will be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.

¶39