- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34994 CP No. 238 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 238 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. AKSHATHA MALLYA M, W/O MR. VIKRAM BHAT @ BHAT VIKRAM VINAYAK D/O DR. RATHNAKAR MALLYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3-62, 'AKSHATHA', DEVI NAGAR, BALVAI VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. VIKRAM BHAT @ BHAT VIKRAM VINAYAK S/O H. VINAYAK BHAT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.2J, SUNDHER HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, NEAR 8TH MILE SIGNAL HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KOMALA T, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER FOR WITHDRAWING THE MC NO.184/2025 PENDING ON THE Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34994 CP No. 238 of 2025 FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA WHERE THE MC NO.3/2025 IS PENDING, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 M.C.No.184/2025 instituted by the respondent - husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala where M.C.No.3 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner - wife seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is served and represented by counsel, there is no representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Karkala and she has filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34994 CP No. 238 of 2025 M.C.No.3/2025 before the City Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that the distance from Byluru Village, Moodabidre, where the petitioner is residing to Bangalore is approximately 354 kilometers and requires the whole day or the night travel whenever she is required to make her presence before the Family Court at Bangalore. It is her submission that there is a danger to her life in the event she is made to travel from her place to the place where the respondent husband has instituted the petition and the travel distance being more than 8 to 10 hours, causes great inconvenience to the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the husband at Bangalore. It is submitted that the petitioner has a minor child, who is aged 7 years and studying at Moodabidre making it more difficult for her to attend the proceedings initiated by her husband at Bangalore. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner -wife has instituted M.C.No.3/2025 before the ACJM, Karkala and that she is residing at Byluru Village, Moodabidre, along with her minor child aged about 7 years. The respondent - husband, on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34994 CP No. 238 of 2025 the other hand, has filed proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Bengaluru. The distance between Byluru Village, Moodabidre and Bengaluru is approximately 354 kilometers, which ordinarily requires a full day's travel or an overnight journey. Expecting the wife, who is the custodian of a young child, to travel such a long distance repeatedly to attend court hearing would undoubtedly cause her undue hardship and inconvenience and financial burden. 5. 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 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. Thus, the cardinal principle is the convenience of the wife than the inconvenience caused to the husband. 1Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34994 CP No. 238 of 2025 6. In view of the above, petition for transfer deserves to be allowed and this court pass the following: O R D E R (i) Civil petition is allowed. (ii) M.C.No.184/2025 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala to be heard along with M.C.No.3/2025. (iii) Parties to appear before the Family Court at the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala on 13.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK