(BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) v. BENCH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the fact that husband is staying at Bengaluru and taking care of the daughter and the distance - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18198 CP No. 100074 of 2024 between both the places is 500 kms and considering the inconvenience caused to the husband this…
Judgment
SMT. VIJAYALAXMI AMMANNAVAR W/O SHASHIDHAR AMMANAVAR D/O SHIVAYOGI KOTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: 11TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. (BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER AND: SHASHIDHAR AMMANAVAR S/O HANUMATAPPA AMMANAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER, R/O: NO.5/2, LAKSHMI NILAYA, BEHIND SKYLINE APARTMENT, MARUTI NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-580 072. (BY SRI. S.M. PATIL AND SRI. M.V. PATIL, ADVOCATES) V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH … RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C.NO.894/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BENGALURU TO PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAGALKOT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18198 CP No. 100074 of 2024 THIS CIVIL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of MC No.894/2024 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of Prl. Judge Family Court, Bagalkot.
The facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 03.06.2013 at NWKRTC Kalyana Kendra Hubballi. In the wedlock they are blessed with a daughter. It is the case of the wife that she has been forcibly removed from the matrimonial home and she is living with her parents. Wife has filed MC No.25/2024 seeking divorce on the file of Prl. Judge Family Court, Bagalkote on 12.02.2024. The husband had filed MC No.894/2024 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for Restitution of Conjugal rights. It is stated that the distance between Bengaluru and Bagalkot is more than 500 kms and there is threat to the life of the wife and also it is difficult for her to - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18198 CP No. 100074 of 2024 travel on all dates of hearing hence, she prays to transfer MC No.894/2024 pending on the file of Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru to Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that considering the inconvenience being caused to the wife, the MC pending on the file of Bengaluru be transferred to Bagalkot.
Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that husband is working in Bengaluru. In fact daughter is with the father and he has been taking care of the child. It is submitted that mother has completely neglected the child and no petition is filed by her seeking custody of the daughter. He submits that considering the inconvenience caused to the husband the petition requires to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record.
Operative part
Considering the fact that husband is staying at Bengaluru and taking care of the daughter and the distance - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18198 CP No. 100074 of 2024 between both the places is 500 kms and considering the inconvenience caused to the husband this Court is not inclined to transfer the case. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The Petition is dismissed. ii. All the pending IAs in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI HMB CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 9.
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.