- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO.300 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. MEGHANA .G AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O SRI NAGARJUNA .R RESIDENT OF NO.1, 12TH CROSS ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AMRUTHESHWARA NAGARA, BELAWADI POST, MYSURU-560 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. NAGARJUNA .R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA, RESIDENT OF ‘SRI SIMHADRI NILAYA’, 2ND CROSS ROAD, SHIVANNA LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA, BELAGUMBA, TUMKURU-572 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN M.C.NO.194/2025 BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT TUMAKURU FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 TO COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT MYSURU, WHEREIN THE PETITION M.C.NO.756/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(1) (i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SEEKING JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND DECREE OF DIVORCE PENDING ON THE SAID COURT. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.194/2025, instituted by the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights by invoking provisions under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short), pending on the file of the Court of the I Additional Principal Family Judge, Tumakuru to the Court of Principal Family Judge, Mysuru, where M.C.No.756/2024, instituted by the petitioner–wife seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking provisions under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, is pending adjudication. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 08.06.2023, as per the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 customs prevailing in their community. Due to un-cordial relationship the parties are residing separately for quite some time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already instituted M.C.No.756/2024 before the Court of Principal Family Judge, Mysuru seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent-husband has entered appearance in the said proceedings, filed his statement of objections as well as an additional statement of objections, but did not chose to file any counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is further submitted that, when the matter was posted for the cross- examination of PW.1 in M.C.No.756/2024, the petitioner received a notice in M.C.No.194/2025, instituted by the respondent-husband before the I Additional Principal Family Judge, Tumakuru seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The filing of a separate petition at Tumakuru, despite the pendency of proceedings at Mysuru, is nothing but harassment to the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 5. The petitioner is presently residing in her parents house at Mysuru. The travel distance between Mysuru and Tumakuru is around 160 kilometers one way, compelling her to travel such a distance on every hearing date causes undue hardship and great inconvenience to the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband at Tumakuru, while she is already prosecuting her case at Mysuru. Therefore, it is just and proper to transfer M.C.No.194/2025 pending before Family Court at Tumakuru to the Family Court at Mysuru, to be tried along with M.C.No.756/2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent’s parents are aged and suffering from age related ailments. It is urged that, in the event the transfer sought by the petitioner-wife is allowed, the respondent would be put to inconvenience, as he has to look after his aged parents in addition to attending proceedings at a distant place. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 7. The ground urged by the respondent-husband that his aged parents are suffering from ailments and therefore he would face inconvenience if the proceedings are transferred cannot be accepted as a valid reason to defeat the transfer petition and outweigh the cardinal principle laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions in line, namely, that in matrimonial matters where transfer is sought by the wife under Section 24 of CPC, the paramount consideration is the convenience of the wife rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. 8. 8. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner wife has already instituted M.C.No.756/2024 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru seeking dissolution of marriage. The husband entered appearance in the said case and has filed objections. If the respondent desired to seek the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, he could very well have raised counterclaim, instead of instituting a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 separate petition. Permitting two parallel proceedings at two different forums would not only cause hardship to the petitioner-wife but also lead to multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of conflicting judgments and therefore, also constitutes a valid ground to transfer husband’s petition to the Family Court at Mysuru, where the wife’s petition is already pending. 9. The petitioner has demonstrated that she is residing at Mysuru with her parents, the travel distance between Tumakuru and Mysuru is around 160 kilometers one way. Requiring her to attend the proceedings at Tumakuru would cause hardship and inconvenience, particularly when she is already prosecuting her divorce petition at Mysuru. 10. The Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1(Aishwarya) has held that the ends of justice should 1Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 demand the transfer and, given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm, generally the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering a transfer under Section 24 of CPC, in matrimonial matters Courts must weigh the economic and social circumstances of the parties. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following : ORDER i. The Civil Petition is allowed. ii. M.C.No.194/2025 pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Principal Family Judge, Tumakuru is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru and to be tried along with M.C.No.756/2024. iii. The parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35983 CP No. 300 of 2025 15.10.2025 without awaiting for further notice. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18