SMT. RANJITHA K. C v. COURT OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. By the submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the respondent is not residing at the place where the case is filed i.e., at Kollegala Village. The inconvenience that is projected by the petitioner amounts to sufficient…
Judgment
SMT. RANJITHA K. C., W/O. SRI LOKANATHANAIK R., D/O CHANDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BEHIND MASJID, KEREYAGALA HALLI, THIMMAPPAIAHNAHALLI CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 543. (BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: … PETITIONER AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI. LOKANATHANAIK R., S/O RAMAMURTHYNAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RASHIBOLITHANDA, JAGERI VILLAGE, SATHEGALA POST, KOLLEGALA TALUK-571 440. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION IN M.C NO. 39/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND PLACE THE SAME BEFORE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHALLAKERE AS THE RESPONDENT IS ATTENDING OTHER TWO PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CALL FOR RECORDS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7184 CP No. 360 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.N.R.Naik who appears through video conference and represents the petitioner. Also heard Sri. Vasantha Kumar.K.N. who represents Sri. Srikanth Patil.K learned counsel on record for the respondent. Also gone through the statement of objections filed.
This is a petition filed seeking the Court to transfer MC No.39/2022 which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Challakere.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Due to disputes that arose between them, they are residing separately. The respondent filed a petition i.e., MC No.39/2022 seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage and the same is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala. The petitioner resides in Challakere village which is at a distance of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7184 CP No. 360 of 2024 380 kms to Kollegala. The petitioner, being a woman, is unable to take up travel for such a long distance to reach the Court and attend on each and every date of adjournment. Therefore, she filed the present petition seeking transfer and hence, the request may be considered.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that the respondent is presently working at Penukonda Town of Andhra Pradesh State. The respondent will find it extremely difficult to travel to Challakere in case, the subject case transferred and thus, petition is not maintainable.
Operative part
By the submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the respondent is not residing at the place where the case is filed i.e., at Kollegala Village. The inconvenience that is projected by the petitioner amounts to sufficient cause to effect transfer. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to honor the request of the petitioner. Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7184 CP No. 360 of 2024 (ii) MC No.39/2022 which is pending before the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of Senior civil Judge, Challakere. (iii) The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala is directed to transmit the entire record in MC No.39/2022 duly indexed to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Challakere within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) Parties to the proceedings are directed to appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Challakere on 09.04.2025. (v) Issuance of further notice is not required. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
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.