- 1 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL PETITION NO.100156 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NUTAN W/O. VISHAL KUMBAR AGED 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN PRIVATE SECTOR, R/O. B. 303, 3RD FLOOR, SHRI SAI PRIDE APARTMENTS, FLOWER GARDEN MAIN ROAD, BABUSAPALYA, KALYANANAGARA, BENGALURU 560043. NOW RESIDING AT ‘PARVATI NILAYA’ T.S.S. ROAD, 2ND CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, SIRSI DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581402. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE VISHWANATH RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: VISHAL S/O. ASHOK RAO KUMBHAR AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE R/O. B 303 3RD FLOOR, SHRI SAI PRIDE APARTMENTS, FLOWER GARDEN MAIN ROAD, BABUSAPALYA KALYANANAGARA, BENGALURU 560043. NOW RESIDING AT C/O. LAXMI ASHOKRAO KUMBHAR NEAR SAINIK SCHOOL, GALLI NO 2, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.24 10:41:49 +0530 - 2 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 VASUMBE, TQ. TASGAON, DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA 416309. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.K. MITTALKOD AND SRI. AKARSH MITTALKOD, ADVOCATES) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION AT M.C.NO.1837/2024 FILED UNDER SECTION 13(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU TO PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SIRSI. IN THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the case in MC No.1837 of 2024 pending on the file of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi. 2. Siri Hegde Vishwanath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that for no fault of the petitioner, the respondent has filed the present petition with an intention to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that Bengaluru is located at a distance of 430 kms from the residence of petitioner. Petitioner is living with her parents in Sirsi. She is also having - 3 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 health problems. Petitioner is not in a position to travel such a long distance. Petitioner is working in a Private Sector at Bengaluru, but due to health problems, arrangement for working from home is made by the employer and now she is living with her parents at Sirsi. The communication for permanent work from home arrangement from the employer is also enclosed along with the petition as per Annexure-C. It is also submitted that to defend the case, petitioner is to travel all the way from Sirsi to Bengaluru. Further, her parents is also aged and the petitioner will effectively defend the case, if it is transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civl Judge at Sirsi. 3. On the other hand, Sri S.H. Mittalkhod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband filed statement of objections contending that the transfer petition filed by the petitioner is baseless and is devoid of merits. It is submitted that petition is frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petition is filed only with an intention to harass the respondent. It is submitted that the parties to the petition are working in a company located at Bengaluru and hence there won't be any inconvenience for the petitioner to prosecute the matter at Bengaluru. Though the petitioner claims - 4 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 to have taken permission for work from home, the said arrangement is not a permanent arrangement. Though it is stated that the petitioner has taken work from home arrangement from the employer due to health issue, but she has not produced any medical document to support the said claim. It is submitted that alleged work from home is got approved only to make out a ground for getting transfer of Matrimonial case from Bangalore to Sirsi. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed maintenance case in Criminal Miscellaneous No.973 of 2023 before the I Additional Family Court at Bengaluru and a 498A case in Crime No.392 of 2023 is also pending at Bengaluru. Since there are already cases pending in Bengaluru in the matrimonial case, the presence of the petitioner is not required on every date of hearing. It is stated that matrimonial case is at the stage of evidence and also in view of the pendency of other matters, the matrimonial case could be disposed of at the earliest. It is further stated that an attempt to assault the respondent was made by the petitioner and her relatives in the premises of family court at Bengaluru. This matter was orally reported to the concerned court which has warranted the petitioner and her relatives. It is further stated that even such - 5 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 an attempt was made at the police station at Bengaluru when respondent has gone to police station to comply with the anticipatory bail conditions. It is further stated that the respondent is from Maharashtra and he is not proficient in regional language. There is a serious threat to the life of the respondent at Sirsi, where the petitioner and her parents are stationed. It is also stated that court has to take notice of misuse of women-centric laws meant for protection of women are used to predate the men by filing multiple cases. There is no law which says that only the convenience of life is to be considered. On all these grounds, it is sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have examined the material placed for me. A perusal of the grounds urged in the petition makes it clear that the petitioner has suppressed the facts as to filing of Criminal Misc.No.973 of 2023 before the Family Judge at Bengaluru and also Section 498A case in Crime No.392 of 2023 before the Criminal Court at Bengaluru. Suppressing these material facts, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The cause title of the petition itself reveals that petitioner-Nutan wife of Vishal Kumbar is a resident of Babusabpalya, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru. - 6 - CP No. 100156 of 2025 The address of the respondent as shown in the cause-title is also one and the same. It is not in dispute that the both petitioner and respondent are employees in a private sector. Petitioner has not placed any material to show that she is residing at Parvati Nilaya, TSS Road, Ashok Nagar Sirsi. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that she is suffering from health problem. Annexure-C produced by the petitioner is not issued by any Medical Officer. Hence, on the basis of Annexure-C alone, the grounds urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I am of the opinion that it is not just and proper to allow the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN CT-CMU