Dismissed

Smt. Manisha v. K Jagannath Reddy

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2026CP/425/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from K.G.F (Bangarpet) to Bangalore, citing distance, no income and care of minor child. Court found mere inconvenience insufficient; respondent offered to bear travel expenses and video-conference examination was available.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Family Court directed not to insist on petitioner's personal appearance except when her presence is actually required.

Smt. Manisha Vs K Jagannath Reddy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14751 CP No. 425 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶6

CIVIL PETITION NO. 425 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANISHA, W/O JAGANNATH REDDY, D/O. SUNDARASHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: # 56, 2ND FLOOR, RAILWAY QUARTERS, PATALAMAMMA LAY, KADUGODI PLANTATION, BANGALORE - 560 067.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANIL SHEKAR K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

K JAGANNATH REDDY, S/O. KODANDARAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR RECORD IN MC NO.46/2025 IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT K.G.F (SITTING AT BANGARPET) AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL BY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:14751 CP No. 425 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ALLOWING THIS CIVIL PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶24

This civil petition is filed by the wife for transfer of M.C.No.46/2025, filed by the husband for divorce, from

¶25

the Additional Senior Civil Judge at K.G.F, (Sitting at Bangarpet) to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore.

¶26

It is stated that the respondent/husband is an agriculturist residing in Bangarpet and he filed the petition for divorce on 27.02.2025. It is further stated that the petitioner is residing in Bangalore along with her parents and minor girl child. The distance between Bangarpet and Bangalore is about 84 km. Therefore, requested for transfer of the matter.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14751 CP No. 425 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

In the objection filed by the respondent, it is

¶31

contended that he had initially filed M.C. No.29/2023 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex parte . Thereafter, he filed an application for divorce in the year 2025. He has relied upon the decision in Anindita Das vs.

¶32

Srijit Das ,¹ wherein it was held as follows:

¶33

"Transfer petition filed by wife on ground of her difficulty to attend court at Delhi because of having a child of six years, having no source of income and not keeping good health Leniency to ladies shown by court in such transfer matters often misused and taken advantage of by women - So court is now required to consider each petition on its meritIn this case, grandparents available to look after the child and respondent willing to bear all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit to attend court at Delhi-Petitioner, except for stating that she was not keeping good health, gave no particulars-She can apply for exemption from attending court at Delhi on a particular date and court will consider the same on merits-Held, thus no ground for transfer made out."

¶34

1 (2006) 9 SCC 197

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:14751 CP No. 425 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent further

¶39

submitted that he is ready to bear the travel expenses of the petitioner. The distance between the two places is only 84 km and the travel time required is about 1½ to 2 hours .

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she has no source of income. The main ground for transfer is that she cannot travel with the minor child and attend the Court at Bangarpet. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that mere inconvenience cannot be considered as a ground for transfer of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to file an affidavit before the Family Court, and she can be cross-examined either through a Commissioner or by video conferencing. In any event, if she attends the Court, the respondent is instructed to pay her travel expenses. It is stated that the matter is posted for the evidence of respondent. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the application. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . The Family Court is directed not

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14751 CP No. 425 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner

¶45

herein except when her presence is actually required.

¶46

In view of disposal of main petition, pending IA's

¶47

stand disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶49

AMA

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Manisha v. K Jagannath Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manisha v. K Jagannath Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Mukesh. G. M. Vs Rekha. M

Suleka Sarkar Vs Mounith K. R.

Sri Abhishek Shandilya Vs Sri Mallesh R

Smt Varshini K M Vs Kumaraswamy

Sri. S. Ramesh Vs Sri. K P Jayaram

Mubarak Vs the Manager