Smt Kirthana Kulkarni Vs Sri B Aditya v

SMT KIRTHANA KULKARNI W/O SRI B. ADITYA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 635, 35^TH WARD, NEAR SRS MUTT, HOSAPETE - 583 201 VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN SAGAR., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI B ADITYA V S/O SRI B. HARINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.511 ARUSH ARYA APARTMENTS CHANNASANDRA LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶14

(BY SRI. VEDA MURTHY M V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 IN MC NO.7536/2025 ON THE FILE OF VITH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR JUDGE, HOSAPETE.

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:26022 CP No. 103 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Though this matter has come up for admission, with consent of learned counsel for both parties, the same is

¶24

taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶26

This petition is filed by wife for transfer of MC No.7536/2025 filed by husband for restitution of conjugal rights before VI Additional Principal Judge Family Court at Bangalore to Principal Senior Judge, Hosapete.

¶27

It is stated that the petitioner is MBA graduate and she is working from home and earning and the distance between Bangalore and Hosapete is 400 kms. The marriage of petitioner with respondent was performed in the year 2018 and they are blessed with a female child in the year 2023 and presently the age of the child is 3 years. Learned counsel of the petitioner stated that husband tried to take away the custody of the child, as

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26022 CP No. 103 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

such, protection order was granted by Hosapete court on 20.05.2026 and filed the copy of the same. It is further stated that he also assaulted her father and now he is bed ridden and her father gave complaint against respondent on 27.03.2026. The police are trying to console both of them. In the complaint, it is stated that there is a serious threat to the life of the family members of the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that

¶32

she is at liberty to represent through the counsel and also she can appear through video conferencing. Therefore, it need not be transferred.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner stated that as per their information she is working in Bangalore, but they have not filed any record to show the same.

¶34

Admittedly the petitioner is residing with her parents and also minor child aged 3 years at Hosapete and attending work from home and she got protection order against her husband. The complaint is also given by her

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:26022 CP No. 103 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

father alleging that there was a threat to their life. It is

¶39

further stated that respondent is unemployed.

¶40

Therefore, considering the arguments of both sides, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to transfer MC No.7536/2025 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, from VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Senior Judge, Hosapete.

¶41

In the result this petition is allowed .

¶42

Respondent is at liberty to file the chief affidavit and

¶43

he can be examined through a video conferencing or through Commissioner.

¶44

In view of the disposal of the main petition, interlocutory application is closed.

¶45

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶46

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Smt Kirthana Kulkarni v. Sri B Aditya v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kirthana Kulkarni v. Sri B Aditya v

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

Mr. Joseph Nelson Baptist Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Smt.G. Usha Rani Vs Sri.D Parandhaman @ Naveen

Sri Mahadevappa @ Mallappa, Vs Sri Thammannappa N C

Mrs. Shwetha M., Vs Mr. Satish Kumar N

K N Revamma Vs Panduranga

H R Chandrappa Vs Suchitha N Jadhav