- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16380 CP No. 514 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL PETITION NO. 514 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. PAVITHRA ROSHAN PUTHRAN @ PAVITHRA B. D/O SRI NEMIRAJ B., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MASHREQ GLOBAL SERVICE PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN, CRESCENT 2, 3RD FLOOR, WHITE FILED, BANGALORE 560 066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADV.) AND: SRI. ROSHAN D PUTHRAN S/O DAYANANDA PUTHRAN AGED 39 YEARS NO. 07-4-T-475/12 3RD FLOOR ADITHI APARTMENT 4TH CROSS MATADHAKANI MANGALORE-575 006. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS., ADV.) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS IN G AND WC NO. 16/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. FAMILY COURT, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA TO THE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16380 CP No. 514 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed seeking transfer of G & W.C No.16/2024, pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada to the Family Court at Bengaluru. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife is working at Bengaluru and the child is staying at Bengaluru and it is difficult for her to travel from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. Hence, the present petition is filed. 3. The husband had raised his objection stating that wife is not working in Bengaluru and in fact the child is staying at Mangaluru and as such, the petition cannot be transferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order granting visitation rights to the respondent. Even as per the said order, the father has been exercising the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16380 CP No. 514 of 2024 right of visitation at Bengaluru which shows that the child is residing at Bengaluru along with the mother. 5. On the last occasion, this Court had asked the mother to file an affidavit before this Court giving particulars, from when she is residing in Bengaluru, in which place she is residing, in which Company she is working and whether she is working from home at Mangaluru or from the office in Bengaluru, whether the boy is with her in Bengaluru or he is residing with her parents at Mangaluru. Accordingly, the affidavit is filed in that regard stating that she is working at Bengaluru and staying in Bengaluru along with his son. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband submits that if the mother is working and the boy is not going to the school, who is taking care of the boy is not known and it strengthens the fact that the boy is residing in Mangaluru along with maternal grand parents. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Admitted facts - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16380 CP No. 514 of 2024 in this case are that in view of the order passed in the appeal, the father is exercising the right of visitation at Bengaluru and according to him, she is not working in Bengaluru. For that, an affidavit is filed before the Court. If any statement that is filed before the Court is not correct, then the respondent could have filed the document before the Court. No such document is filed. 8. Coming to the next submission that if the wife is going for the work, who is taking care of the boy at home, that is not the scope of enquiry in this petition and this Court is not inclined to go in to this aspect. 9. Considering the fact that the boy is staying with the mother at Bengaluru and the distance between Bengaluru and Mangaluru is 360 kms., this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. G&WC.No.16/2024 filed by the respondent pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16380 CP No. 514 of 2024 withdrawn and the same is transferred to the Family Court at Bengaluru. ii. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is allowed. iii. All I.As. in this Civil Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23