IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
CIVIL PETITION NO.57 OF 2017
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.41/3,
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
MYSURU 570 014.
(BY SHRI SRINIVASA D.C, ADVOCATE)
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.A-31/1
BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD
KODAGU DITRICT 571 236.
(BY SHRI. R.D. PANCHAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24
OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CIVIL PETITION AND
TRANSFER THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN
MC NO.54/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMWARPET TO THE PRINCIPAL
FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU.
THIS CIVIL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Sri. D.C. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the
Sri. R.D. Pancham, learned counsel for
2. The Petition is admitted for hearing. With
the consent of the parties the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner/wife, inter-alia,
seeks a direction to transfer the proceeding instituted
by the respondent/husband from Somwarpet to
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition
briefly stated are that, the marriage between the
parties to the proceedings was solemnized on
8-2-2015. It is the case of the petitioner that
respondent and his family members ill-treated the
petitioner and making demand for additional dowry.
They thrown her out of matrimonial home. The
petitioner, thereafter filed a Criminal case for an
offence under Section 498A of IPC as well as under
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
maintenance at Mysuru. The respondent/husband filed
a petition in the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Somwarpet, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. In the aforesaid factual background, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief
as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the distance between Somwarpet and Mysuru is
90 Kms., and there is nobody to look after the
petitioner and petitioner is entirely dependent on her
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent has opposed the prayer.
7. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajani
Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi
[(2005) 12 SCC 237] has held that in a matrimonial
dispute, convenience of the wife is of the prime
9. In view of the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court and taking into account the fact that
the petitioner has no source of income and she is
entirely dependent on her parents and there is nobody
to accompany her to Somwarpet, it is directed that
the proceedings instituted by the respondent under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
M.C.No.54/2016 which is pending before the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet, shall stand
transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction in
10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.