Dismissed¶46

Smt.Nikitha a P v. Sri.S. Ranjith

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2025CP/369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CP 369/2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:44008), 31-10-2025, V Srishananda J. Transfer of matrimonial case under Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 denied; divorce petition Section 13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act (M.C.No.964/2024) to remain in Bengaluru; wife's convenience plea rejected; appearance permitted via video conferencing on application; restitution of conjugal rights and child-maintenance petitions pending at Mysuru; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner can avail the video conferencing facility and effectively participate before the Bengaluru Court, and the husband can likewise utilise that facility for the pending matters before the Mysuru Court, the transfer petition needs to be dismissed. ¶40

Smt.Nikitha a P Vs Sri.S. Ranjith — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44008 CP No. 369 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL PETITION NO. 369 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NIKITHA A.P W/O S RANJITH, D/O K. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT. NO 18, KAVERI MAIN ROAD, GURURAJA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. S. RANJITH S/O SUNDERAJ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 302, 3RD FLOOR, PARADESI PALMS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KALKERE, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. KIRAN THIRUMALESH J, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF MC NO.964/2024, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, WHICH IS AS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44008 CP No. 369 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PER ANNEXURE - A AND B, TO THE COURT OF IST ADDITIONAL, PRL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶21

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri.P.Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Kiran Thirumalesh J., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil

¶26

Procedure with the following prayer:

¶27

“Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶28

a. Allow the petition and thereby order for transfer of MC No.964/2024 which is pending in the court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru which is as per Annexure-A and B, to the Court of 1^st Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysore.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:44008 CP No. 369 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

b. To pass such other order/s deemed fit under facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

Respondent has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in M.C.No.964/2024 whereas the petitioner/wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and another petition through the minor child for maintenance in the Court at Mysuru.

¶34

Petitioner is expressing her inability to visit Bengaluru to effectively participate in the pending divorce petition. Therefore, petition is filed on the ground of inconvenience caused to the petitioner/wife.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is employed in Bengaluru and is now working from home and therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44008 CP No. 369 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Taking note of the fact that petitioner can avail

¶40

the video conferencing facility and effectively participate in the case before the Bengaluru Court and husband can also utilize the said facility to effectively participate in the pending cases before the Mysuru Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition needs to be dismissed.

¶41

Further, if any application is filed by the

¶42

petitioner/wife before the Court at Bengaluru seeking permission to appear through video conferencing, same shall be allowed by the learned Trial Judge and permit the

¶43

wife to appear through videoconferencing.

¶44