Dismissed

Smt Mallamma T Bulla v. Sri Raveendra Byatanal

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2026CP/451/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a transfer petition in a divorce matter filed by a working wife. While granting directions for the trial court to allow inclusive evidence and reimbursement of travel costs, the petition for case transfer was rejected as it was not just or reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Court directed Family Court not to insist on personal appearance unless necessary; respondent to bear travel expenses; petition for transfer dismissed.

Smt Mallamma T Bulla Vs Sri Raveendra Byatanal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:17205 CP No. 451 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

CIVIL PETITION NO. 451 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT MALLAMMA T BULLA, D/O TIPPANNA BULLA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.2-308, JAGAT ROAD, NEAR AKKAMAHADEVI TEMPLE, JAGAT, KALABURAGI- 585 105.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. MANASA H. S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

SRI RAVEENDRA BYATANAL, S/O B V SHAMUKHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.56, 19TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.232, NANJUNDESHWARA, 1ST CROSS ROAD, SHARADA COLONY, BASAVESWAR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CP IS FILED U/S.24 OF CPC PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C.NO.5878/24 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:17205 CP No. 451 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

TO THE HONBLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, KALABURAGI.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This Civil Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife for transfer of M.C.No.5878/2024, filed by the husband for divorce before the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, to the Court of Principal Family Court, Kalaburagi.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized in the year 2023, and she is a permanent resident of Kalaburagi, residing with her ailing mother and earning a meagre income. It is further stated that she is working as an announcer in All India Radio and getting meagre income.

¶28

The petitioner has stated in the petition that she is ready and willing to rejoin the respondent. Accordingly, both parties were referred to mediation, but the mediation was failed. It is also stated that the distance between Kalaburagi and Bangalore is about 630 kilometres. The petitioner has

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17205 CP No. 451 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

stated that she has never travelled alone without being accompanied by her parents before the marriage and by her husband after the marriage. As such, it is difficult for her to travel to a metropolitan city like Bangalore and she cannot leave her ailing mother alone and travel.

¶32

In the objections filed by learned counsel for the respondent stated that the parties last resided together at Bangalore. As such, he has filed M.C.No.5878/2024 for divorce before the Court at Bangalore. It is further contended that Kalaburagi and Bangalore are well connected by rail, road, and other modes of transport and the petitioner’s presence is not required before the Family Court on every date of hearing. She can give her evidence on one date and cross-examination on another date of hearing. The respondent has also stated that he is willing to bear her travel expenses for two dates of hearing and she can also appear through video conferencing. The respondent has relied upon the judgment in Priyanka Batra Vs. Banish Batra¹ wherein it was held that the petitioner/wife was unemployed, had no source of income and

¶33

1 (2005) 12 SCC 236

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:17205 CP No. 451 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

never travelled alone, but the husband’s willingness to bear all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion was taken into consideration and accordingly, the transfer application was dismissed. He has also relied upon the judgment in Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das² , wherein the wife filed transfer on the ground of difficulty in attending the Court at Delhi as she had a six years child. But the Court observed that she cannot take an exemption from attending the Court on a particular ground and accordingly dismissed the transfer petition. It was further observed that the leniency to ladies shown by Court in such transfer matters often misused and advantage taken by women. It was also stated that grandparents are available to look after the child and the respondent is willing to bear all expenses for the travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion on every visit.

¶38

The petitioner herein is aged 44 years and is working, earning and residing at Kalaburagi with her mother. She requested for transfer of the case filed by her husband from Bangalore to Kalaburagi, which is at a distance of 630

¶39

2 (2006) 9 SCC 197

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17205 CP No. 451 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

kilometres. But the respondent has stated that he is ready to bear her travel expenses. Admittedly, the petitioner can file her chief affidavit and attend the Court only for cross-examination. she can be cross-examined either through Commissioner or through video conferencing facility. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to direct the Family Court not to insist upon her personal appearance unless there is any requirement by the Court. Whenever she is required to appear before the Court, the travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion shall be paid by the husband/respondent.

¶43

With these directions, the civil petition stands dismissed.

¶44

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. filed for stay is closed.

¶45

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶46

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Mallamma T Bulla v. Sri Raveendra Byatanal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mallamma T Bulla v. Sri Raveendra Byatanal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Keshavamurthy Vs the Manager

The Manager Vs Shri Madappa B D

Hemalatha N Vs K Gangappa

Smt Milana v T Vs Sri Anil Kumar S

Smt. Rathnamma v Vs the Managing Director (Bmtc)

R Gangaiah Vs Gujjula Venkataramana Reddy