Smt. Vidyasheree S L Vs Sri Shrikrishna

SMT. VIDYASHEREE S L AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. SHRIKRISHNA R/AT NO. 221, 4^TH CROSS SECOND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-97. AS PER THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF MC PETITION. RESIDING AT NO.682/A, 35^TH WARD, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, NEAR AKASHVANI, PRIYANKA PRASANNA, HOSPET-583 201.

¶12

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VEENAKUMARI M.., ADVOCATE) PADMASHREE AND: SHEKHAR DESAI SRI SHRIKRISHNA Location: High Court of AGED ABOUT 34 YEAR, Karnataka S/O. SHRINIVAS KARJAGI R/AT KRISHNA KUNJI SECTOR 33, PLOT 43 B, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. HIREMATH VIJAY NAGAYYA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶19

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶20

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, DIRECT FOR TRANSFERRING THE MC 125/2024 PENDING IN PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPETE TO PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS DEEMED FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

CAV ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by respondent-wife for transfer of MC No.125 of 2024 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosapete to the Principal Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶25

The petitioner wife stated that the aforesaid M.C. is filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. It is stated that their marriage was solemnized on 27.01.2023 at Bagalkot. Her husband compelled her to leave the job and as such, she resigned her employment. A male child was born on 07.03.2024. It is further stated that the respondent-husband and his father, who is practising advocate, are financially influential. As such, she apprehends danger to her safety and

¶26

3 -

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶29

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶30

to that of her minor child. Threats have persisted even till date causing her fear, mental distress and insecurity. As such, she cannot effectively contest the proceedings at Hosapet.

¶31

Respondent-husband filed statement of objections and mainly objected to territorial jurisdiction of this Court and stated that the petitioner filed this petition for transfer of the case from Family Court at Vijayanagar District to the Family Court at Bangalore District. As such, this transfer application is to be filed before Dharwad Bench. He also stated that petitioner was permanently residing at Hosapet and shifted to Bangalore for the purpose of employment and she is attending the Court at Hosapet from the past 1½ years without raising any grievance or inconvenience. It is further stated by the respondent-husband that in I.A. No. 2 dated 15.07.2025, petitioner-wife sought for interim maintenance for herself and child and stated that she was unemployed and entirely dependent on her parents. In the said application, she also filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities on 28.03.2025. He placed on record the EPF records of the petitioner through Universal Account Number (UAN) to disclose that she was in active

¶32

4 -

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶35

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶36

employment with CBA Services Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 13.01.2025 much prior to the filing of affidavit dated 15.07.2025. The respondent stated that he Initiated perjury proceedings against her for making false statement under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023, and it is still pending before the trial court. The respondent-husband further stated that he resigned from service and also enclosed the resignation and acceptance letter. He is unemployed and he has no source of income. He is residing with his parents and has to take care of them. It is further stated that the distance between both the courts is 500 kilometers and it causes great financial hardship and serious inconvenience to him. It is also stated that petitioner-wife filed Criminal No. 571 of 2026 before the Court at Hosapet under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Though she herself voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction at Hosapet, now she is contending that attending the court at Hosapet causes her inconvenience and hardship. The respondent husband and his parents have no access to meet the minor child from past 2 years. If the case is transferred to Bangalore, it becomes very difficult for them to visit the child.

¶37

5 -

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶40

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶41

M.C. No. 125 of 2024 has already reached the stage of orders.

¶42

Thus, the respondent requested report to dismiss the application.

¶43

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

¶44

The main contention of the respondent-husband is that this Bench has no jurisdiction for the transfer case from Hosapet Court to Bangalore Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has relied on the judgment of the contemporary Bench in the case of Shivaleela Bellad Vs.Mallikarjun Bellad decided in C.P. No.100014 of 2019 dated 13.07.2020, in which it was said that Principal Bench is also having jurisdiction to transfer the case within the Courts situated in the Districts from which it hears cases. In the said case, it is observed that under Section 24 of CPC, the Permanent Bench can order for transfer of cases within the courts situated in districts from which it hears case i.e. fundamental exercise of powers of the High Court to transfer the case from one part of the state to any other part of the state, and exercise of the powers cannot

¶45

6 -

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶48

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶49

be diluted or restricted by a misconstruction of the Presidential order, it has got the same effect.

¶50

The Family Court at Bangalore is within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench and the Family Court at Hosapet is within the jurisdiction of Dharwad Bench. Therefore, this Court finds that petitioner can file transfer application either before Dharwad Bench or before this Court. Therefore, the objection of the respondent regarding territorial jurisdiction for transfer of the case is not sustainable.

¶51

The main contention of the respondent-husband is that petitioner-wife has made false representation before the Family court, Hosapet regarding her employment and salary and they filed relevant documents to prove the same and also initiated perjury proceedings. As such, she is not entitled for the transfer of divorce proceedings. The petitioner-wife has stated that respondent-husband and his father, who is practicing advocate, are influential and in the said case, she has tried to attend the court at Hosapet. She herself has also filed Criminal No.571 of 2026 before the Court at Hosapet and

¶52

7 -

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:36260 CP No. 189 of 2026

¶55

CNR: KAHC010402632026

¶56

now she is expressing her inconvenience to travel from Bangalore to Hosapet. The perjury proceedings are pending before the Family Court. As per the memo filed by the respondent-husband, petitioner-wife has also filed the proceedings under DV Act before the Family Court and further she is also working and earning. Though she stated that there is threat from the respondent and his father, she has not filed any complaint against them in that aspect.

¶57

Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶58

However, the petitioner-wife is permitted to file chief examination affidavit and she can be cross examined through a Commissioner or through video conferencing. The Family Court is directed not to insist upon the presence of petitioner unless there is any requirement.

¶59

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶60

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt. Vidyasheree S L v. Sri Shrikrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidyasheree S L v. Sri Shrikrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Manjushetti @ Manju

T S Siddaraju Vs S Srinivas

Smt K R Geetha Vs H C Nagabhushan

Sri S Ramesh Vs Smt Jyothi Ramesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. v. Reddamma

Mr J Krishne Gowda Vs Doddamunishyami