S. P. Poornima Vs N. Jagadeesh

N. JAGADEESH S/O C. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.365, 9^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, R.H.C. LAY-OUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGARA, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.291/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOW PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU TO THE COURT OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT AT CHITRADURGA IN M.C.NO.125/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C. No.291/2024 instituted by the respondent-husband filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short), pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bengaluru Rural to the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chitradurga to be heard along with M.C. No.125/2024.

¶25

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

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Chitradurga along with her minor son, aged about 11 years. The distance between Chitradurga and Bengaluru is approximately 200 kms,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

making it extremely difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by her husband at Bengaluru. Learned counsel further draws the attention of the Court to the order sheet in M.C. No.291/2024, wherein the petitioner herein was initially placed ex parte and on an application filed by her, the said order of ex parte was recalled. It is further pointed out that the crossexamination of PW.1 was taken as ‘Nil’ owing to the difficulty faced by the petitioner in giving proper instruction to her counsel in Bengaluru and therefore, the matter was posted for arguments. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is genuinely unable to effectively prosecute and attend the proceedings at Bengaluru, thereby justifying her request for transfer.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶32

submits that the petitioner-wife has herself instituted a partition suit through her son at Bengaluru, and is actively prosecuting O.S. No.5305/2024. This contention completely negates her plea of inconvenience. It is further

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

argued that equitable relief under Section 24 CPC cannot always be claimed as a matter of right in favour of the wife, particularly where the party seeking transfer has not approached the Court with clean hands. In the instant case, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that she is already attending proceedings at Bengaluru in O.S. No. 5305/2024, while simultaneously seeking transfer of the husband’s matrimonial case from the same city on the ground of inconvenience. Hence, plea of convenience cannot be said to be bonafide . It is further submitted that the respondent has lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Chitradurga, alleging threat to his life. Therefore, if the present matrimonial case is transferred to Chitradurga, the respondent apprehends serious danger to his safety. On these grounds, it is urged that the prayer for transfer deserves to be rejected.

¶37

This Court considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The marriage between the petitioner and the

¶41

respondent was solemnized on 16.05.2012 as per the customs prevailing in their community. From the wedlock, a male child was born on 21.09.2014 and is presently aged about 11 years. Due to the uncordial relationship between the parties, they have been residing separately for quite sometime. The respondent-husband has instituted M.C. No.291/2024 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural seeking dissolution of marriage and the petitioner-wife, on the other hand, filed M.C. No.125/2024 before I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga for restitution of conjugal rights. It is not in dispute that the care and custody of the minor child is with the petitioner-wife. The petitioner resides at Chitradurga. The travel distance between Chitradurga and Bengaluru is about 200 kms one way. The order sheet in M.C. No.291/2024, produced along with the petition, demonstrates the inconvenience suffered by the petitioner. She was placed ex parte , which order was subsequently

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

set aside on her application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Therefore, the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 07.12.2024, her prayer for adjournment was rejected, and consequently, the cross-examination of PW.1 was taken as ‘Nil’ and posted for arguments. These facts

¶46

clearly establish that the petitioner was unable to effectively defend her case due to the difficulty of attending the proceedings at Bengaluru.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner is prosecuting O.S. No.5305/2024 at Bengaluru and therefore, her plea of convenience is not bonafide . This Court of the considered view that while the conduct of the parties is a relevant factor, the cardinal principle in matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC is that the convenience of the wife must be given paramount importance. The pendency of O.S. No.5305/2024 at Bengaluru, which is admittedly at a very initial stage, cannot by itself be a ground to conclude that petitioner is not put to inconvenience. What is

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

decisive is the inconvenience demonstrated in M.C. No.291/2024, where the petitioner’s inability to attend resulted in prejudice to her defence.

¶52

Thus, considering the distance of over 200 kms between Chitradurga and Bengaluru, the custody of the minor child with the petitioner, and the hardship evidenced from the order sheet in M.C. No.291/2024, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has been put to irreparable hardship and inconvenience. In such circumstances, the convenience of the wife prevails over that of the husband and her Civil Petition needs to be allowed and this Court pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Civil petition is allowed.

¶55

ii. M.C. No.291/2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bengaluru Rural is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chitradurga to be heard along with M.C. No.125/2024.

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:35386 CP No. 41 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

iii. The parties shall appear before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chitradurga on 16.10.2025 without waiting for further notice.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶62

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

S. P. Poornima v. N. Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. P. Poornima v. N. Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D v Rangaswamy Vs Smt Tulasa Bai

Sri. Dr. S v Divakar Vs Sri. Shivalingaswamy

S Ramesh Vs Sri K Kaliyappan

Sri. Balakrishna T Vs State of Karnataka

Mr K v Ambarish Vs Mr P Rajendran

The Tahsildar Vs Smt Shankuntala