Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31187 (KAR)

SMT. KAVYA J v. SRI. AMOGHAVARSHA

CP/330/2024 · 2025-03-28

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13460 CP No. 330 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL PETITION NO. 330 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. KAVYA J, W/O AMOGHAVARSHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUNDURU GRAMA, DEVARAYAPATTANA POST, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS KAVYA J, ASSISTANT ENGINEER BESCOM, N H 69, MADHUGIRI - 572 132, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.P. VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. AMOGHAVARSHA S/O RAJEEV PATIL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 905, 2ND STAGE, SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY BADAVANE, VIDYANAGARA POST, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER, i. TO TRANSFER THE PETITION BEARING M.C. NO.148/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT TUMKUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13460 CP No. 330 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed seeking transfer of M.C.No.148/2024, pending on the file of the Family Court, Davangere, to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkur. 2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 18.05.2022. In view of the differences between the parties, the wife had filed a complaint before the Women Police Station, Tumkur on 04.08.2022 and the same is registered as Crime No.99/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband has filed M.C. No. 148 at 2024 on the file of the Family Court at Davanagere seeking divorce. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that the distance between Tumkur to Davanagere is about 196 kms. She is residing with her parents and it is difficult for her to travel all the way from Tumkur to Davanagere. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13460 CP No. 330 of 2024 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband submits that the parents of the respondent are suffering with health issues and he is the only person who has to take care. Further, it is submitted that earlier they tried to attack the respondent and others and there is a threat to his life if he attends a Court at Tumkur. It is submitted that in view of these circumstances, the case may not be transferred and in fact, it is not convenient for the husband, if the case is transferred from Davanagere to Tumkur. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The admitted facts are that the wife is staying along with the parents and the distance between both the places is about 196 kms. According to the husband, he has to take care of the parents and there is a threat to his life. As far as the threat aspect is concerned, unless and until a complaint is given to the police and just like that basing on the averments made in the petition, the Court cannot consider the threat perception. Then coming to the aspect that he has to take care of the parents also, cannot be a ground not to transfer the petition from Davanagere to Tumkur. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13460 CP No. 330 of 2024 6. Considering the submission of both the counsels and the fact that the distance between the both the places is about 196 kms. and it is difficult for the wife to travel all the way, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i) M.C.No.148/2024, pending on the file of the Family Court Judge at Davanagere is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkur. ii) The wife shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. iii) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. iv) All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK