Allowed¶33

Smt.Madeeha Azmi v. Sri.Tanveer Khan

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CP/479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CP No. 479 of 2024, Lalitha Kanneganti J., decided 07.03.2025: Section 24 CPC transfer petition; wife's convenience; divorce suit O.S.113/2024 moved from Chintamani to Principal Family Court, Bengaluru; distance about 80 km; care of 4-year-old daughter; wife's residence material already before Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.Misc.221/2024 (Section 12 PWDVA); respondent's harassment objection rejected; petition allowed with direction to wife against unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

O.S.No.113/2024 transferred from the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, with the wife directed to cooperate with the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments; all IAs in the petition stand closed. ¶33

Smt.Madeeha Azmi Vs Sri.Tanveer Khan — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether O.S. No. 113 of 2024, the husband's divorce suit pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, should be transferred to the Principal Family Court at Bengaluru in view of the wife's inconvenience (care of the 4-year-old daughter and distance of about 80 kilometres). +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Court was unable to appreciate the respondent's submission on jurisdiction and residence of the wife, since necessary material already stood placed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl.Misc. No.221/2024; considering that the wife has to care for the 4-year-old girl, that the distance between the places is about 80 kilometres, and her inconvenience, transfer was warranted.

¶31

Key takeaways

O.S.No.113/2024, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani, is withdrawn from that file and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.ratio¶33
The transfer was made on condition that the wife shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition under Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure: the wife sought transfer of the husband's divorce suit O.S. No.113/2024 from the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. She stated she does household work to eke out her livelihood, has to care for their 4-year-old daughter, and that Chintamani is about 80 kilometres away. The husband contended she is a permanent resident of Chintamani and had filed her domestic violence petition (Crl.Misc.No.221/2024 under Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) in Bengaluru only to harass him. The Court observed that necessary material on the wife's jurisdiction and residence already stood before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl.Misc. No.221/2024 and, considering the childcare burden, the distance of about 80 kilometres and the wife's inconvenience, withdrew O.S.No.113/2024 from the Chintamani file and transferred it to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, directing the wife to cooperate with the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments. Petition allowed; all IAs closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9888 CP No. 479 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL PETITION NO. 479 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.MADEEHA AZMI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O AZAM ASHA, W/O TANVEER KHAN, R/AT SKY HEIGHTS CADER, DOOR NO. 5/1, 5TH CROSS, ROSAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS R/AT WARD NO.25, NNT ROAD, NEAR K.G.N HIGH SCHOOL, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJATH H.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDANA H.B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. TANVEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NAZEER KHAN, R/AT NNT ROAD, KGN SCHOOL NEAR, 2ND CROSS, RAJAPPA LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.

¶12

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC:9888 CP No. 479 of 2024

¶14

BUSINESS OFFICE ADDRESS SRI. TANVEER KHAN HBF AUTO MOBILES, NEAR APMC YARD, BESIDE MRF TYRE SHOWROOM, CHELUR ROAD, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125, MOB: 9738032441/7019829544.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. NAGESHA V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE OS. NO. 113/2024 PENDING BEFORE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT TO JURISDICTION COURT OF HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The present petition is filed seeking transfer of O.S. No. 113 of 2024, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitamani to the Princiapl Family Court at Bengaluru.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:9888 CP No. 479 of 2024

¶24

The facts of the case are that the marriage

¶25

between the parties was solemnised on 15.11.2019 and in the wedlock, they are blessed with a girl who is now aged 4 years. In view of the differences between the parties, the husband has filed O.S. No.113/2024 seeking divorce. The wife had filed a petition under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Traffic Court - VI at Bengaluru i.e., Crl.Misc.No.221/2024.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the wife that she is doing household work to eke out her livelihood. It is stated that she also has to take care of the daughter who is aged about 4 years and it is difficult for her to travel all the way to Chintamani which is about 80 kilometres away on each date of hearing.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the respondenthusband submits that wife is a permanent resident of Chintamani and only for harassing the husband, she has filed a petition in Bengaluru.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. With regard to the jurisdiction

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:9888 CP No. 479 of 2024

¶31

and residence of the wife, already necessary material is placed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl.Misc. No.221/2024. As such, this Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Considering the fact that the wife has to take care of the girl who is aged about 4 years, the distance between both the places is about 80 kilometres and inconvenience of the wife, this Court is passing the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

O.S.No.113/2024, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.

¶34

The wife shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶36

All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶38

KA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK

Smt.Madeeha Azmi v. Sri.Tanveer Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Madeeha Azmi v. Sri.Tanveer Khan

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

Viona Gomes Vs Heremane Sunil D Souza

Girijamma Vs Mariyamma

Sri. N. B. Gurudeva Vs Sri. B. Venkateshwara Reddy

Saleem Vs Haseena

Sri Anil Vs Sri K Muniraju

Smt Lekhana R @ Kavya R Vs Sri Jayaprakash S R @ Preetham S R