Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55262 (KAR)

SMT PRATHIMA K N v. SRI KIRAN KUMAR B

CP/31/2025 · 2025-10-27

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL PETITION NO. 31 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT PRATHIMA K N W/O KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O 28, KEREHALLI, RIPPONPET POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 426 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K V SATEESHCHANDRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KIRAN KUMAR B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA K AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 667/P60, FEET RING ROAD, NITTUVALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 006 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHITHRALEKHA H.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 25 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF TRANSFER, IN MC.NO.247/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT DAVANAGERE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 TO THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOSANAGARA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. K.V. Sateeshchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. 2. Matter was referred for mediation, but the report from the mediation center reveals that there was no amicable settlement. 3. Present Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most hubmy prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order of transfer, in MC No.247/2021, on the file of the court of the Family Court, Davanagere to the Court of the Senior - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosanagara, in the interest of justice and equity." 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1 Respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Their marriage took place on 08.02.2019 at K.E.B. Samudaya Bhavana, Hadadi Road, Davanagere. 4.2 The matrimonial relationships got strained and wife went back to her parents' place at Hosanagara, Shivamogga District. 4.3 She filed a criminal miscellaneous petition for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.32/2023. In the said petition, interim maintenance is ordered, but the respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance. 4.4 Further, petitioner has also filed a complaint before the Rippon Pet Police Station, Hosanagara Circle, Sumaga District under Section 498-A, 114, 506 read with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent and his family members which is now pending before the jurisdictional court at Hosanagara. 5. In the meantime, the respondent has filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Davanagere in M.C. No.247/2021. The said case is now sought to be transferred to Hasanagara for effective disposal. 6. Counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for transfer. 7. Petitioner contends that since the interim maintenance is not paid and the respondent is required to attend the case before the Hosanagara, filed for grant of interim maintenance and the criminal case filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the divorce petition may also be transferred to Hasanagara for effective disposal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 8. It is also pleaded that petitioner is financially not sound enough to visit the Court at Davanagere to conduct the case at Davanagere. 9. This Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that two cases are pending before the Hosanagara Court. A case for divorce is pending before the Family Court at Davangere. 11. The financial constraint and the difficulty in travelling from Hosanagara to Davangere to effectively participate in the pending of the matrimonial proceedings can be quelled by directing the petitioner to make use of the video conferencing facility. Her advocate at Hosanagara can also appear through video conferencing and conduct the divorce case pending on the file of the Family Court, Davangere effectively. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42849 CP No. 31 of 2025 12. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, learned Trial Judge in the Family Court, Davangere shall allow the same and permit the petitioner to participate through video conferencing. 13. With that observation, following order is passed. ORDER Civil Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT-SG