- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL PETITION NO.100138 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. NIDHI MANDHANA W/O MR. OMPRAKASH K., AGE. 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, MERU AADHI APARTMENTS, SILVER SPRING LAYOUT, MUNEKOLALA, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. OMPRAKASH KADUKURUBA S/O RAMANA GOWDA KADUKURUBA AGE. 44 YEARS, OLD RESIDING AT NO.93, WARD NO.19, SREE LAKSHMI NIVASAM, GANESH COLONY, S.N. PET, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING M.C. NO. 61 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU & ETC. THIS CP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.25 11:54:40 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner-Smt.Nidhi Mandhana, has filed this petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking to transfer the proceedings in M.C.No.61/2025 from the Court of the Principal Family Court, Ballari, to the Court of the learned Principal Family court at Bengaluru, on the following grounds: i. “The Petitioner along with their minor daughter is residing in the address mentioned in the cause fitle. Apart from the Petitioner and their minor daughter no one else resides with them in the address mentioned in the cause title above. ii. The Petitioner in order to attend the matrimonial proceedings in Ballari will have to either leave her minor daughter in Bengaluru or will have to take their minor daughter with her to attend the case in Ballari. In the first instance, there is no one here to take care of the needs of the minor daughter and in the second instance, the regular - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 school life and routine of the minor daughter will be disrupted. iii. The Petitioner herein is a housewife and has no income of her own to maintain herself. The Respondent is employed with 'CGI' as a Technical Services Manager/Solution Architect and presently is residing in Canada. No inconvenience would be caused to the Respondent if the Divorce Petition in Ballari is to be transferred to Bengaluru. On the contrary, the Petitioner will incur huge expenditure in having to travel to Ballari in order to prosecute her case. These being the circumstances, it is difficult for the Petitioner to meet the additional expenses in prosecuting the case in Ballari, which is 309 kilometers from Bengaluru and takes a travel time of 5 hours and 36 minutes. iv. The learned Principal Family Court at Ballari while registering the case has not applied its mind. It has failed to take into consideration that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. v. The learned Principal Family Court at Ballari does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the said proceedings as the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was not solmenised in Ballari, the Petitioner herein, who is the Respondent therein, is not residing in Ballari and further the Petitioner and the Respondent together with their minor daughter have not ordinarily resided in Ballari. Thus, the learned Family Court at Ballari does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the said proceedings. vi. It is submitted that, at the time of present the petition for a decree of divorce, the Petitioner was and is residing in Bengaluru at the address mentioned in the cause title - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 above. The Petitioner and the Respondent were residing in Bengaluru along with their minor daughter prior to having the filed the present proceedings and therefore it would be the learned Family Court at Bengaluru which alone will have territorial jurisdiction to try the said proceedings. vii. The Petitioner will be put to undue hardship and turbulence and it would be difficult for the Petitioner to prosecute the case with nobody to accompany her to Ballari courts. The Petitioner will be in a better position to attend the case in Bengaluru rather than being compelled to go to Ballari each time the matter is listed. Coupled with that as state above, the Ballari court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence in the interest of justice it is just and necessary to transfer the present M.C petition from family court Ballari to family court Bangalore.” 3. The respondent appeared through his counsel and filed a statement of objections, contending that the petition is not maintainable in law. The respondent has admitted the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. 4. Further it is stated that the Petitioner has concealed the facts of decisive import only with conceited intentions to gain an upper hand. The very tenor nay the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 substance of the pleadings would leave no one in any shred of doubt that the petitioner is committed to suppressio veri suggestio falsi. The petitioner has not made any revelation of the fact that she is business person and has been doing business at Ballari under the name the name and style of 1) Shrinaathji Foods & Processing private Limited of which she and her proximate relatives namely Neena Mandhana, and Nurpur Mandhana are the directors. The petitioner owns one more firm called Nupur Projects Private Limited of which she and her kinsmen namely Neena Mandhana, and Nurpur Mandhana are the directors. The registered office of both the said concerns is at Ballari. The Petitioner to oversee and manage the said business stay put at Ballari and rarely goes to Bangalore and hence the contentions to the contrary canvassed by the petitioner in the petition are utterly false. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Along with the petition, the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the registration of marriage, the birth certificate of her daughter, Krisha K., dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 18.06.2015, the school certificate issued by VIBGYOR School, Bangalore, the sale agreement executed by the vendor in favour of both the petitioner and the respondent, and a letter addressed to the respondent by the Government of Canada. 6. I have examined the materials placed before me. 7. Considering the grounds urged and also the keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No(S).4894/2022 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.(S). 16465/2021), dated 18.07.2022, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to allow this petition. Accordingly accepting the reasons assigned in the petition, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Civil Petition is allowed; ii. M.C. No.61/2025 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court at Ballari, is hereby - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12354 CP No. 100138 of 2025 withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Family Court at Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law; iii. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due; iv. The Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to both the Courts, for taking necessary action. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37