Dismissed¶48

Smt.Shweta Bhat v. Sri.Vijay Satish Ganachari

Transfer petition (wife) – S.24 CPC

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025CP/462/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 CPC transfer of matrimonial case; Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) divorce petition; M.C. No.4902/2024 Family Court Bengaluru; transfer sought to Family Court Bagalkote; geographical distance; financial incapacity; video conferencing appearance; wife's transfer petition dismissed; NC: 2025:KHC:50280; Coram: Justice V Srishananda.

What did the court decide?

No transfer granted; the petitioner was directed that she may file an application before the Family Court to appear through video conferencing, and that such application is to be allowed. ¶48

Smt.Shweta Bhat Vs Sri.Vijay Satish Ganachari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No transfer granted; the petitioner was directed that she may file an application before the Family Court to appear through video conferencing, and that such application is to be allowed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce case M.C. No.4902/2024 pending before the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru should be transferred to the Family Court, Bagalkote, on the ground of the petitioner-wife's residence at Guledagudda entailing geographical distance and financial incapacity.

¶34

Court's answer

This Court held that geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid grounds to transfer the proceedings.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Transfer of proceedings from one Court to another Court is unnecessary in view of the video conferencing facility.

¶41

Key takeaways

If the petitioner intends to participate in the proceedings before the Family Court effectively through video conferencing, she may file an application before the Family Court; such application is to be allowed and the petitioner permitted to appear through video conferencing.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition (wife) — S.24 CPC — Geographical distance and financial incapacity no longer valid grounds for transfer in view of video conferencing facility — Petition dismissed with liberty to seek video-conference appearance. The petitioner-wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition M.C. No.4902/2024 (under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act) from the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Family Court, Bagalkote, pleading that she resides at Guledagudda and citing geographical distance and financial incapacity. Held, dismissing the Civil Petition: geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid grounds to transfer proceedings from one Court to another in view of the video conferencing facility; if the petitioner intends to participate effectively through video conferencing, she may file an application before the Family Court, and such application is to be allowed permitting her to appear through video conferencing.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:50280 CP No. 462 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO. 462 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SHWETA BHAT W/O VIJAY SATISH GANGACHARI D/O SHANTAVEEAPPA SHINDHE BAHT AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/F WARD NO.5 BAGWAN PETE GULEDGUDDA BAGALKOT DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 587 203

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI.VIJAY SATISH GANACHARI Digitally signed S/O LATE SATISH RAMANNA GANGACHARI by AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS SHARADAVANI B R/AT NO.C-303 Location: High LAKSHMIDEVI ENCLAVE Court of Karnataka 1^ST C MAIN ROAD L D BLOCK, GANGANAGAR R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032

¶14

&RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE CASE BEARING M.C.NO. IN NO.4902/2024 FILED BY THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50280 CP No. 462 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FILE FOR DISSOLUTION FOR MARRIAGE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, TO THE COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT, AT BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶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. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner and Sri. Bharath for Sri. Subramanya H.V., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The present petition is filed by the

¶27

petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the following prayer:

¶28

"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to withdraw the case bearing MC No. in No.4902/2024, filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, filed for dissolution for marriage, pending on the file of the Court of I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, to the court of the Family court, at Bagalkote, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50280 CP No. 462 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶32

necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶33

4.1 On account of strained matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent, a petition came to be filed before the Trial Court for the divorce by the respondent in M.C. No.4902/2024 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore.

¶34

Wife is now seeking transfer of the matrimonial case from Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to Bagalakote as the petitioner/wife is the resident of Guledagudda and on account of geographical distance and financial incapacity.

¶35

Same is opposed by the respondent/husband.

¶36

Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is

¶37

noted that geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid grounds to transfer the proceedings

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:50280 CP No. 462 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

from one Court to another Court in view of the video conferencing facility.

¶42

Thus, request of the petitioner cannot be

¶43

granted.

¶44

However, if the petitioner intends to participate

¶45

in the proceedings before the Family Court effectively through video conferencing, she may file an application before the Family Court and said application needs to be allowed and petitioner be permitted to appear through video conferencing.

¶46

With that direction, following Order:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Civil Petition is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶50

SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt.Shweta Bhat v. Sri.Vijay Satish Ganachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shweta Bhat v. Sri.Vijay Satish Ganachari

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

Smt. Bhanmathi Vs Smt. Shwetha. S

Shivamurthy Vs Mahadevamma

Dr. C B Kavana Vs Dr.G. Sagar Hangaragi

Mr Mohammed Inayathulla Vs Al Mubarak Educational Trust(Regd)

Smt S Lakshmidevi Vs Viha K

Sri M Kantharaj Vs Smt Krishnamma Now Deceased Represented