Allowed

Smt. Kanchana M C v. Sri Gajendra M

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026CP/434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's restitution of conjugal rights case from Family Court, Mysuru to Kanakapura, citing travel difficulty with a minor child. Citing comparable Supreme Court transfer precedents, the High Court found the transfer just and reasonable and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

MC No.687/2025 transferred from II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

Smt. Kanchana M C Vs Sri Gajendra M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23515 CP No. 434 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO. 434 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. KANCHANA M C AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O CHIKANNA RESIDING AT MARASASNDRA ROAD, HAROHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE SOUTH RAMAMNAGAR DISTRICT - 562 112.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. SUSHMA H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

SRI. GAJENDRA M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVA RESIDING AT EW S 226, NEW KANTARAJA ARASU ROAD, BEHIND KUMAR MEDICALS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU TOWN - 570 023 PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT TELANURU VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 440.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2026, TRAIL COURT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:23515 CP No. 434 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CP IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC., PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE MC NO.687/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU KARNATAKA TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This civil petition is filed by the wife for transfer of M.C.No.687/2025, filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, from the II Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Mysuru (for short 'Family Court') to the Court Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present and stating that notice was served on the counsel appearing for respondent before the Trial Court through Whatsapp on 01.04.2026. But despite such service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶27

Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:23515 CP No. 434 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is stated that she is residing in Kanakapura

¶32

along with her parents and minor child, aged about 6 years, studying in Ramanagar. She is working as an Admin Assistant in Paravady, which is approximately 96 kilometers away from Kanakapura to Mysuru. It is inconvenient for her to travel with a minor child. Her husband is working as a Social Security Contractor and also residing in Paravady. But he has filed application before the Family Court, Mysuru only for trouble her.

¶33

In similar circumstances, in the matter of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v/s Ashok Kishi Chand Sadhwani reported in (2009) 16 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to transfer the matrimonial case filed by the Respondent/Husband pending in the Family Court at Indore to the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai, Maharashtra considering the fact that the distance between Mumbai and Indore in Madhya Pradesh is about 900 Kms and also, considering the fact that the Petitioner wife had no one in her family to escort her during her

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:23515 CP No. 434 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

journey from Mumbai to Indore and in the matter of Seema vs. Rakesh Kumar reported in (2000) 9 SCC 271 , the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the petition for transfer of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh to Jogadhri in Haryana where she was residing with parents as she had no source of income and was dependent on her father.

¶38

Therefore, considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel with a minor child to Family Court at Mysuru, this Court finds it is just and reasonable to transfer MC No.687/2025 from the Family Court, Mysuru to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶39

Accordingly, the civil petition is allowed .

¶40

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶41

AMM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Kanchana M C v. Sri Gajendra M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanchana M C v. Sri Gajendra M

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

Kumara Vs Gangadharappa

Sunil H.N. Vs Narasimhamurthy P.H.

Sri K Puneeth @ Sidderaje Urs Vs Smt M N Vidya Urs @ Kempammanni

Sri Ananda Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Jayalakshmi M Vs Sri Nagaraj B S

Kum Soundarya M Vs Sri N Ravi Kumar