SMT. ARPITA @ KEERTI JAGADEESH v. PARVEEN
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
(i) The Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6029 CP No. 384 of 2024 (ii) The case in M.C.No.267/2023 which is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad withdrawn and is transferred to the Court Principal…
Judgment
SMT. ARPITA @ KEERTI JAGADEESH RAMADURG@ ARPITHA H.N. W/O JAGADISH S. RAMADURGA, D/O. LATE B. S. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO 323, 4TH CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, N.T.I. LAYOUT, 1ST PHASE KODIGEHALLI, BANAGLORE - 560 092. (BY SRI. S.R. DODAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI. JAGADISH @ JAGADISH S RAMADURGA S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA RAMADURGA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT TULASI NILAYA, TULAJA BHAVANI TEMPLE, NEAR SHRI RAMA NAGAR, DHARWAD - 580 001. PRESENTLY WORKING AT: OCC: GOVT SERVANT ACCOUNT SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD AND IWTD CHIKODI DIVISION, PWD QTRS, NEAR I. B., CHIKKODI, KARNATAKA - 581 201. (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA D., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6029 CP No. 384 of 2024 THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C. NO. 267/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT DHARWAD TO PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT BENGALURU. 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.S.R.Dodawad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Vivekananda.D, learned counsel for the respondent.
This is a petition filed seeking the Court to transfer M.C.No.267/2023 which is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad to the Principal Family Court, Bengaluru.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Due to the disputes that arouse between them, they are residing separately. While the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru, the respondent is residing at Chikkodi. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6029 CP No. 384 of 2024 However, the respondent filed M.C.No.267/2023 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad seeking decree of divorce. The petitioner who has no source of income is unable to travel from Bengaluru to Dharwad to attend the Court on each and every date of adjournment. Therefore, she moved the present petition seeking transfer of the case.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has no objection whatsoever to effect transfer as prayed for.
Having considered the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the respondent and considering the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that transfer of the case as prayed for is required to be effected.
Operative part
Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6029 CP No. 384 of 2024 (ii) The case in M.C.No.267/2023 which is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad withdrawn and is transferred to the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. (iii) The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad is directed to transmit entire record in M.C.No.267/2023 duly indexed to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 19.03.2025. (v) Issuance of further notice to the parties is not required. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) 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.