- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6935 CP No. 520 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 520 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. A. N. SHWETHA KUMARI, W/O. M. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, 1ST STAGE, BELURU ROAD, HASSAN CITY - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHA M G., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O. VISHWARUPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 87, MAIN ROAD, RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ORDER FOR WITHDRAWING THE PETITION IN M.C.NO.447/2024, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, HASSAN. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6935 CP No. 520 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Ravisha.M.G, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Harshavardhan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a petition filed seeking the Court to transfer M.C.No.447/2024 which is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their lawful wedlock resulted in the birth of a child and the said child is aged about 12 years at present. The petitioner is looking after the welfare of the said child. The respondent filed a petition seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage and the same is pending as M.C.No.447/2024 at Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner is unable to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6935 CP No. 520 of 2024 travel from Hassan where she resides to Bengaluru to attend the Court on each and every date of adjournment. Therefore, she filed the petition seeking transfer of the case and thus her request may be considered. 4. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a high handed woman and there is threat to the life of the respondent. Learned counsel also states that when the respondent attended the Mediation Centre at Bengaluru for amicable settlement of the issues and while the respondent was near the Court premises, he was forcibly taken away by the petitioner and her associates in a car and thereafter left him after considerable period. A complaint was given to police in that regard, but no action is taken. The respondent therefore, is contemplating to file a private complaint before the concerned Court. That apart, the respondent filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was allowed directing the petitioner to join the respondent. The said order was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6935 CP No. 520 of 2024 passed in the year 2015. However, the petitioner did not choose to honour the order of the Court and she failed to join the respondent. In the light of the eminent threat to the life of the respondent, it will be wholly unsafe to him to go to Hassan if case is transferred as prayed for. If the case is transferred to Hassan, the petitioner who is resident of Hassan will certainly attack the respondent along with her family members. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. 5. There is no denial of the fact that the parties are at longer heads since more than a decade. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny the fact that the Court passed a decree of restitution of conjugal rights but the decree still remains on paper only. The fact that the father of the respondent addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru regarding the kidnap of his son by the petitioner and her associates is on record. The child born out of the wedlock is aged around 12 years - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6935 CP No. 520 of 2024 as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not required to carry the child every time to the Court along with her. 6. Having regard to the grounds through which the respondent opposed the relief sought for and as no convincing grounds are found to effect transfer, this Court is of the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31