(BY SRI. K. V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Having considered the grounds urged which appears justifiable, this Court is of the view that transfer as requested is required to be effected. Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) M.C.No.10/2024 which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge…
Judgment
SMT. M. S. SHRUTHI, W/O SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, GURUPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. (BY SRI. K. V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: SRI. M. H. SOMASHEKARAIAH, S/O. HALAYYA M. G., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KANIVEBILACHI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 213. AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF TRANSFER M.C. NO. 10/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT CHANNAGIRI TO PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART-HEARD (ADMISSION), THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6265 CP No. 251 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.K.V.Sateeshchandra learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter was heard on petitioner's side even on
06.01.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent sought time on that day to make his submission. Accordingly, time was granted. However, there is no representation on the side of the respondent on this day.
This petition is filed seeking the Court to transfer MC No.10/2024 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Due to differences that arose between them, they are residing separately. The respondent filed a petition seeking decree of divorce vide MC No.10/2024 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri. However, the petitioner, who is suffering from different health ailments, is not in a position to take up travel from Shivamogga to Channagiri to attend the Court on each and every date of adjournment. Learned counsel also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6265 CP No. 251 of 2024 states that the petitioner has no source of income and even the respondent has not paid any maintenance to her till now. Learned counsel thereby seeks to effect transfer as prayed for.
At this stage of dictating the judgment, Sri. Pawan Kumar representing Sri. Devendrappa learned counsel on record for the respondent appears and submits that the matter is likely to be settled. As major part of the order is already dictated, the matter cannot be adjourned. Also, in case there is any likelihood of settlement, the same can be effected before the Court concerned.
Operative part
Having considered the grounds urged which appears justifiable, this Court is of the view that transfer as requested is required to be effected. Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) M.C.No.10/2024 which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6265 CP No. 251 of 2024 (iii) The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri is directed to transmit the entire record in MC No.10/2024 duly indexed to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.