IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CIVIL PETITION NO.179/2017
SMT. S. V. SHYLAJA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. N A ANILKUMAR
D/O. Y VENKATASWAMY,
R/O. NO. 1239/1,
OPPOSITE POLICE QUARTERS,
SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO. 2281, 1ST FLOOR,
16TH CROSS, 1ST SECTOR,
HSR LAYOUT, BEHIND
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.)
SRI. N. A. ANILKUMAR
S/O. R. ALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O. MATHRU KRUPA,
NO. 172, 8TH CROSS,
TUMKUR CITY 572 101
(BY SRI K R RAMESH, ADV. )
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF
CPC, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO DIRECT
TRANSFER OF MC NO. 43/2016 ON THE FILE OF
HON’BLE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TUMKUR TO
ANY FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU HAVING ITS
JURISDICTION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR
ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner-wife has sought for transfer of
M.C.43/2016 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court at
Tumkur to the Family Court at Bangalore which is
having jurisdiction to pass orders.
3. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner and
respondent are respectively wife and husband. It is also
not disputed that, some of the cases filed by the
petitioner herein are pending before the Anekal Court
under the Domestic Violence Act and under IPC alleging
offences under Section 498A and other provisions.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner-wife is a practicing advocate
at Bangalore and she has to attend cases at Bangalore
regularly. Knowing fully well that, some cases are already
pending at Anekal Court, in order to cause inconvenience
to the petitioner-wife, the respondent-husband has filed
M.C.43/2016 at Tumkur, for Divorce, under Hindu
5. The learned counsel for the respondent
contends that, if the case is transferred to Bangalore or
to Anekal, it will cause inconvenience and great hardship
to the respondent.
6. Having heard the arguments, the main object
and motto of transfer of case from one court to another
court is to avoid inconvenience to the parties and
facilitate them to attend the court with ease.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, some cases
are pending at Anekal court and respondent anyhow has
to travel from Tumkur to Anekal to attend the said cases.
On the other hand, the petitioner is a practicing advocate
at Bangalore. Therefore, inconvenience that may be
caused to petitioner-wife may be avoided if the case at
Tumkur is transferred to Bangalore. Anyhow respondent
has to attend the cases at Anekal, he can very well
manage to attend the case at Bangalore also.
8. Under the above facts and circumstances of
the case and to avoid inconvenience to atleast one of the
parties, transfer sought by the petitioner-wife can be
granted. Hence, the following order is passed:
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The case in M.C.43/2016 pending on the file of
Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumkur is hereby
withdrawn and the same is transferred to Family
c) Transferor Court is hereby directed to transmit
the entire records to the transferee court.
d) Both the parties agree that they would appear
before the Prl.Judge, Family Court Bangalore on
14.3.2018 along with the copy of this order.