Dismissed¶8

Smt Padma v. Sri v N Vinay Kumar

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025CP/70/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru) transfer petition dismissed; S.24 CPC; transfer of matrimonial case M.C. No.5823/2024 from Family Court Bengaluru to Family Court Chikkaballapur refused; wife's convenience ordinarily primary but not absolute; multiplicity of proceedings; Crime No.132/2024; mediation altercation 26.10.2024 in court premises; complaints and counter complaints; petitioner Padma v. respondent V.N. Vinay Kumar; petitioner residing Mandikal Hobli, respondent working at Bengaluru; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; 14 August 2025; CP No. 70 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:31589.

What did the court decide?

The settled principle that the convenience of the wife must ordinarily be given primacy in transfer of matrimonial matters is not absolute; each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. ¶6

Smt Padma Vs Sri v N Vinay Kumar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether M.C. No.5823/2024 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru should be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapur on the ground of the petitioner-wife's convenience (difficulty of travelling frequently to Bengaluru with a minor child), notwithstanding the respondent's objections based on safety and the pending criminal proceedings at Chikkaballapur.

¶¶24

Court's answer

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Factually, the petitioner is not permanently residing but is presently residing at Mandikal Hobli, which is not proximate, while the respondent is working at Bengaluru and has initiated proceedings there.

¶7.iv

Key takeaways

In these circumstances, transferring the case to Chikkaballapur would neither advance the ends of justice nor secure a peaceful environment for the parties to prosecute their claims.ratio¶7.v
No ground is made out for transfer of M.C. No.5823/2024 from the Family Court at Bengaluru to the Family Court at Chikkaballapur, and accordingly the civil petition stands dismissed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Petition No. 70 of 2025 under Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner-wife (Smt. Padma) seeking transfer of M.C. No.5823/2024 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapur, dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha, J.; decided 14.08.2025). While acknowledging that the convenience of the wife must ordinarily be given primacy in transfers of matrimonial matters, the Court held that the principle is not absolute: complaints and counter complaints at Chikkaballapur, a criminal investigation arising from the 26.10.2024 altercation in the Chikkaballapur court premises (Crime No.132/2024), the prospect of multiplicity of proceedings and aggravation of the strained relationship, the petitioner's present (non-permanent) residence at Mandikal Hobli, and the respondent's employment and residence at Bengaluru led the Court to conclude that transfer would neither advance the ends of justice nor secure a peaceful environment for the parties to prosecute their claims.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO.70 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PADMA D/O PATELAPPA, W/O V.N.VINAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT GONTIGANA HUDYA VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, PERESANDRA POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562104.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI N. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI V.N. VINAY KUMAR S/O V.G. NARAYANASWAMY, A/A 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/2, SRI LAKSHMI, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, Location: HIGH 7^TH CROSS, 6^TH PHASE, COURT OF SAMYUKTHA LAYOUT, KARNATAKA J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 PERMANENT ADDRESS R/AT #849/1, WARD NO.4, NEAR POLICE PARADE GROUND, DINNEHOSAHALLI ROAD, PRASHANTH NAGAR, CHICKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION IN MC NO.5823/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU TO THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 seeking to withdraw M.C. No.5823/2024 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru and transfer the same to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapur.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶26

3. Facts in brief:

¶27

The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 11.12.2022 as per the customs prevailing in the community. From the wedlock, a child is born, who is presently in the care and

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

custody of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she is residing with her parents at Chikkaballapur, and being a woman with a minor child, she finds it difficult to travel frequently to Bengaluru to attend the proceedings initiated by her husband. She has therefore sought transfer of the matrimonial case to Chikkaballapur.

¶32

The respondent has filed objections contending that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. It is stated that when the matter was earlier referred for mediation at Chikballapur, on 26.10.2024, an altercation occurred between the parties in the Court premises, in which the petitioner and her brother allegedly assaulted the respondent. On the said incident, complaints and counter complaints were lodged. Crime No.132/2024 has been registered against the respondent, and the respondent has also lodged complaints before the Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapur, as well as before the Registrar General of the High Court, seeking CCTV footage of the alleged assault. It is further alleged that the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner's brother, being a police official, attempted to intimidate the respondent. In view of the said threats and pending criminal proceedings, it is contended that if the case is transferred to Chikkaballapur, the respondent will face danger to his safety and life.

¶37

It is not in dispute that several criminal proceedings pending between the parties arise out of the incidents that occurred at Chikkaballapur, including the alleged assault that took place in the Court premises on 26.10.2024. It is also noted that the matrimonial house is situated at Chikkballapur, but the respondent is employed and residing at Bengaluru.

¶38

Though the settled principle governing transfer

¶39

of matrimonial matters is the convenience of the wife must ordinarily be given primacy, such principle is not absolute, each case must be examined in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In the instant case, this Court notices that:

¶44

i. There are complaints and counter complaints lodged by both parties at Chikkballapur;

¶45

ii. The alleged incident has occurred at

¶46

Chikkballapur Court premises and is the subject matter of a criminal investigation;

¶47

iii. Transfer of pending M.C. to Chikkaballapur would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and aggravate the strained relationship between the parties.

¶48

iv. The petitioner is not permanently residing but is presently residing at Mandikal Hobli, which is not proximate. The respondent is working at Bengaluru and has initiated proceedings there.

¶49

v. In these circumstances, transferring the case to Chikkaballapur would neither advance the ends of justice nor secure a peaceful environment for the parties to prosecute their claims.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:31589 CP No. 70 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Having regard to the circumstances of this case,

¶54

this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for transfer of M.C. No.5823/2024 from the Family Court at Bengaluru to the Family Court at Chikkaballapur. Accordingly, the civil petition stands

¶55

dismissed .

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶58

MBM

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Padma v. Sri v N Vinay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padma v. Sri v N Vinay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chandana C Vs Sri. Shivakumar B D

Maasthi Gowda Vs S. Nataraju

Abdul Saleem Vs Noor Mohammed

Huchamma Vs Dasappa

Sri.K.N.Basavaradhya Vs Sri Lokesh S

Smt. Anusha N., Vs Sri Kantha Raj H K @ Sri H.K. Lakshmikantha