(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) v. BANGALORE – 560 043

SMT. G.B.PRIYANKA, W/O B. SUHAS, D/O G. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.507, PRASHANTHA PRIYA, 31ST WARD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI COLONY, LAND MARK, VISHAL MART CROSS, HOSPET, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 583 201. (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: SRI. B. SUHAS, S/O BASAVARAJ, AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, 1ST FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, SHAKTHI NAGAR, KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024 KALYANAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VIDYA R GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN G AND WC 2/2020, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE TO THE SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM AT HOSPET, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CP NO. 354/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. G.B.PRIYANKA, W/O B SUHAS, D/O G BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.507, PRASHANTHA PRIYA, 31ST WARD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI COLONY, LAND MARK, VISHAL MART CROSS, HOSPET, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 583 201. (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKASH B SHETTY., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: SRI. B. SUHAS, S/O BASVARAJ, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024 AGED 37 YEARS, R/A NO.32, 1ST FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, SHAKTHI NAGAR, KALYANAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 043. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VIDYA R GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN M.C. NO.52/2020, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE TO THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM AT HOSPET, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner-wife is before this Court seeking transfer of the petitions filed by the husband in G & WC No. 2/2020 and M.C.No.52/2020 pending before the VI - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Hospet.

2. It is the contention of the wife that she is residing at Hospet and, therefore, it would be difficult for her to come to Bengaluru to defend herself.

3. The husband has filed objection to the petitions and seeks to place reliance on the fact that the wife had earlier filed a petition for transfer, but she had chosen to withdraw the same and thereafter, she has presented these petitions, in which she has not even stated that she had sought transfer earlier.

4. He has also contended that an application had been filed in M.C.No.52/2020, which had been initiated by the husband for dissolution, seeking maintenance of Rs.1 lakh per month for herself and for her minor son, along with a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs every year towards 'Educational and Medical Expenses', apart from litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024

5. Learned counsel points out that in this affidavit filed in the month of March, 2023, the wife had categorically stated on oath that she was residing at GB Sumuka Meadows at Channasandra, Bengaluru, which by itself would establish that the wife was residing at Bengaluru and these petitions are filed only to harass the husband.

6. She also points out that the wife had an identity card indicating she was the Managing Director of a Company called ‘On Point Recruiter’ and this Company was, in fact situated at Bengaluru. It is therefore contended that there is absolutely no bonafides in the plea for transfer.

7. When the aspect of non-mentioning of the earlier petition was pointed out, an affidavit was filed by the wife saying that by inadvertence, the earlier proceeding had not been stated in the petitions.

8. A Certificate of a Charted Accountant is also now been filed stating that the identity card which was relied upon by the husband was a Proprietary Concern of the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024 wife. It is also indicated in the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant that for this office of 'On Point', the wife was the Proprietor having its registered office at Bengaluru. It is, however, stated that the Company has done no business transactions from the months of June, 2023 to March, 2024 (except October, 2023). On this basis, it is sought to be contended that the wife was residing in Hospet. Apart from the assertions in the petitions, no document is produced to indicate that the concern owned by the wife was shut down or that she has shifted the residence completely to Hospet.

9. The fact that the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant indicates that some business was done in October, 2023 also establishes the fact that the wife was indeed running her concern at Bengaluru. If the address mentioned in the affidavit, filed in support of the maintenance application, and the documents produced by the husband are taken into consideration, it is clearly - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43742 CP No. 358 of 2024 C/W CP No. 354 of 2024 established that the wife is not residing at Hospet, but is residing at Bengaluru.

10. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petitions filed seeking transfer of M.C.No.52/2020 and G & WC No.2/2020 filed by the husband before the Family Court at Bengaluru.

11. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25