- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 389 OF 2024 C/W CIVIL PETITION NO. 397 OF 2024 IN CP No. 389/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. DANAMMA SWAPNIL ARALI, WIFE OF SWAPNIL SUNIL ARALI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR BSNL TOWER, PAREKH NAGAR, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR MALIKARJUNA ASHRAM, VIJAYAPURA - 586 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SWAPNIL SUNIL ARALI SON OF SUNIL SHATHAPPA ARALI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 78, 13TH CROSS, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR, SUJANA COVENT ROAD, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, HOSA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 100. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DODDATHAMME GOWDA M.L, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN MC NO. 2475/2022, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU, BENGALURU, TO THE FAMILY COURT AT VIJAYAPURA AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THE HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN CP NO. 397/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. DANAMMA SWAPNIL ARALI WIFE OF SWAPNIL SUNIL ARALI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING NEAR BSNL TOWER, PAREKH NAGAR, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR MALIKARJUNA ASHRAM, VIJAYAPURA - 586 201. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SWAPNIL SUNIL ARALI SON OF SUNIL SHATHAPPA ARALI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 78, 13TH CROSS CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR, SUJANA COVENT ROAD, PARAPPANA AGARAHARA, HOSA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 100. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DODDATHAMME GOWDA M L.,ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO DIRECTING TO TRANSFER THE CASE FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MC NO. 1936/2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, TO THE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, TO THE FAMILY COURT T VIJAYAPURA AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THE HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Shashank Nagendran, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions as well as Sri. Doddathamme Gowda M.L, learned counsel for respondent in both the petitions. 2. While C.P 389/2024 is filed seeking the Court to transfer M.C No.2475/2022 from the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the Family Court, Vijayapura, C.P No.397/2024 is filed seeking the Court to transfer MC No.1936/2023 which is pending before the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the Family Court, Vijayapura. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Due to disputes that arose between them they are residing separately. 4. The petitioner filed a petition that is M.C No.1936/2023 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 the Family Court, Bangalore. The respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage that is M.C No.2475/2022 and the same is pending before the same Court that is Family Court, Bangalore. However, the petitioner who was working at Bangalore, lost her job and therefore she returned to Vijayapura which is her parents place and is in search of employment. The petitioner is facing difficultly in attending the Court at Bangalore traveling from Vijayapura. Therefore, both the cases as sought for are required to be transferred. 5. Vehemently opposing the relief sought for, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner gave complaint to police against the respondent and a criminal case was registered against the respondent holding that the respondent committed an offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC and the said case is pending before the concerned criminal Court at Bangalore. The petitioner is attending the Court regularly and is pursuing the said criminal case. That apart, the petitioner herself filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Family Court, Bangalore and the same is pending. The respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the said case is pending since 2022. Only to drag on the proceedings, by taking a false plea, the petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 intends to get the cases transferred. Learned counsel also submits that trial proceedings are in progress in both the matters and they would be disposed of soon and therefore both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner filed a petition vide M.C No.1936/2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Bangalore. A perusal of pleadings in the said case goes to show that the petitioner gave her residential particulars duly indicating that she is residing at Vijayapura. When she was residing at Vijayapura even as on that day, what prompted her to file the case at Family Court, Bangalore is not known. Also no material is on record to show that the petitioner left her job at Bangalore. There is no denial of the fact that the criminal case proceedings are being held at Bangalore only. As per the submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent, trial is in progress in both the cases. While the petition filed for divorce is of the year 2022, the petitioner filed for restitution of conjugal rights is of the year 2023. Admittedly the parties would be benefited in case the proceedings are concluded time bound and expeditiously. 7. As per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner left her job at Bangalore and is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6728 CP No. 389 of 2024 C/W CP No. 397 of 2024 residing at Vijayapura at her parents house and is in search of another job. In case the petitioner finds a job at a different place, there is possibility of the petitioner again seeking transfer of the case. Such an attitude is required to be deprecated. 8. Thus, having regard to all these factors, this Court is of the view that for the best interest of the parties themselves, the proceedings are required to be continued at the Court where they pending at present. Therefore, both the petitions stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT: BHK