Mr S Ashwin Kumar Vs Smt Nisha Alias Shivakumari

MR S ASHWIN KUMAR S/O. LATE. B.V. SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO 220/1, GROUND FLOOR, NANDA KISHAN NILAYA, KANNADA SAHITHYA PARISHAD ROAD, MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU, VIJAYANAGAR, SECOND STAGE, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 017.

¶14

(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT NISHA ALIAS SHIVAKUMARI W/O. MR. S. ASHWIN KUMAR, D/O. K. MAHADEVA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶18

RESIDING AT. NO 1331, SRINIVASA KRUPA,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

OPP SAMBHRAMA CHOULTRY, VIJAYANAGAR, SECOND STAGE, MYSURU-570017

¶23

WORKING AS DATA ANALYST IN ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BAGMANE TECH PARK, C V RAMAN NAGAR, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE -560093

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶26

THE CIVIL PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER,(I)TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION/CASE IN M.C. NO. 55/2024 FROM THE HONBLE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NANJANGUD, IN MYSURU DISTRICT AND TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE HONBLE COURT OF FIRST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSURU IN MYSURU DISTRICT, IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS PETITION M.C. NO. 929/2024 IS PENDING FOR CONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES.

¶27

IN CP NO. 140/2025

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SMT NISHA @ SHIVAKUMARI W/O K MAHADEVA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WIFE OF S ASHWIN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF CHIKKA BEEDI, KALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 575301

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AND:

¶35

S. ASHWIN KUMAR S/O LATE B V SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 220/1 GROUND FLOOR, NANDA KISHAN NILAYA, KANNADA SAHITYA PARISHAD ROAD, NEXT TO HA EMI RUCHI RESTAURANT, MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALAU VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE MYSURU - 570017.

¶36

...RESPONDENT

¶37

(BY SRI. V RANGARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE CASE M.C.NO.929/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO BE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

Civil Petition No.408/2024 is preferred by the

¶43

husband seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.55/2024 initiated by the wife seeking nullity of marriage by invoking section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act'

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

for short) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nanjangudu, and transfer the same to the I Additional Principal Family Judge at Mysuru, where the husband has already instituted M.C.No.929/2024 under section 9 of the Act which is pending adjudication.

¶47

Civil Petition No. 140/2025 is preferred by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No. 929/2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Mysuru, to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nanjangudu wherein M.C.No.55/2024 instituted by the wife under Section 12 of the Act seeking nullity of marriage is pending adjudication.

¶48

The parties herein are referred to as per the rank in C.P.No.140/2025 for the sake of convenience.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds:

¶53

a) That M.C.No.55/2024 was instituted by the petitioner-wife seeking for nullity of the marriage before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nanjangudu. As a counter blast to the said proceedings, the respondent-husband has filed M.C.No.929/2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Court at Mysuru seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶54

b) That initiation of M.C.No.929/2024 at Mysuru is only with an intention of harassing the petitionerwife, knowing fully well that she is residing with her grand parents house at Nanjangud. It is urged that the petitioner is unemployed, has no independent source of income and is wholly dependent on her family. Compelling her to travel to Mysuru would cause grave hardship and inconvenience.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

c) It is also urged that the petitioner's parents are residents of Mysuru, and since the local community in Mysuru is well acquainted with her parents, her appearance before the Family Court, Mysuru would subject her to embarrassment.

¶58

d) It is further contended that the respondent is

¶59

employed at Mangalore, and in fact, Nanjangud is geographically nearer to Mangalore than to Mysuru. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to the respondent if the proceedings pending at Mysuru are transferred to Nanjangud.

¶60

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶61

respondent would urge the following grounds:

¶62

a) That the petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of M.C.No.929/2024 to the court at Nanjangud is malafide and intended only to harass and cause mental torture to the husband.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

b) That the respondent is employed and

¶66

working at Mangalore and if the case is transferred to Nanjangud, it would be extremely difficult for him to travel from Mangalore via Mysuru to Nanjangud, which involves distance nearly 60 - 64 kms., one way

¶67

from Mysuru to Nanjangud. Attending proceedings at Nanjangud would be highly inconvenient and particularly impossible.

¶68

c) It is further submitted that the parents of

¶69

the petitioner-wife are residing at Mysuru, and therefore there is no valid reasons for the petitioner to seek transfer of MC No.929/2024 from the jurisdictional Family Court at Mysuru to the Court at Nanjangudu. The Family Court at Mysuru is appropriate forum and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶70

7.1. It is not in dispute that two proceedings are

¶71

pending between parties - MC No.55/2024 instituted by

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the petitioner - wife at Nanjangud (seeking nullity of marriage under Section 12 of the Act), and MC No.929/2024 instituted by the respondent at Mysuru (seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act).

¶75

7.2. The question before this Court is, whether MC No.929/2024 should be transferred from the Family Court, Mysuru to the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud, so that both matters can be adjudicated together?

¶76

7.3. It is cardinal principle in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife should be accorded primacy, particularly when she shows genuine hardship in attending proceedings away from the place of residence.

¶77

7.4. In the present case, MC No.55/2024 was instituted first by the wife at Nanjangud, which is her place of residence with her grandparents. Requiring her to

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

travel repeatedly to Mysuru to attend MC No.929 of 2024 would certainly cause undue hardship;

¶81

7.5. On the other hand, the respondent - husband is employed at Mangalore, Nanjangud is geographically closer to Mangalore than Mysuru, and thus no significant prejudice would be caused to the husband, if the case is transferred to Nanjangud.

¶82

7.6. To avoid conflicting of judgments both matters

¶83

need to be tried before the Court at Nanjangud considering the convenience of the wife.

¶84

The Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha¹ (Aishwarya)

¶85

has held at para No.9 which reads as under:

¶86

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called

¶87

1 Civil Appeal No.4894/2022

¶88

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36196 CP No. 408 of 2024 C/W CP No. 140 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶91