- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO.93 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SREEREKHA .S AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. LIJIN BABU P.V. D/O. MR. SREEPRAKASH .E RESIDING AT #905/173, OPP. SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL, 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. LIJIN BABU P.V. S/O. SRI THAMBAN .U AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT #2-45, LAXMI NIVAS, YARDOOR, BELTHANGADY, KUVETTU POST, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574217. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABHINAG S., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE MATRIMONIAL CASE BEARING M.C.NO.92/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELTHANGADY, AS PER ANNEXURE-A FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1) (ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT TO PRINCIPAL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE, TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the wife seeking to withdraw M.C. No.92/2024, instituted by the respondent- husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady and transfer the same to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, where the petition filed by the wife in M.C. No.169/2025 seeking dissolution of marriage is pending adjudication. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10.11.2019, as per the customs prevailing in their community. Due to un-cordial relationship, the parties have been residing separately for some time. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing at Mysuru. The distance between Mysuru and Belthangady is more than 400 kilometers and requires about eight hours of travel time. Such long travel would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner, making it difficult for her to effectively prosecute the petition at Belthangady. It is further submitted that she has already instituted M.C. No.169/2025 seeking dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Mysuru and transfer is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent-husband had first preferred M.C. No.92/2024 before the Court at Belthangady. Notice was ordered on 06.12.2024 for her appearance on 16.01.2025, and only thereafter, did she maliciously file M.C. No.169/2025 at Mysuru. It is contended that the petitioner is not a domicile of Mysuru and she has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 misrepresented facts to seek transfer. The respondent employed in Abu Dhabi, claims Belthangdy is convenient for him since his aged parents reside there. He also expresses apprehension of threat if the matter is transferred to Mysuru. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 7. It is no doubt true that the respondent-husband first instituted M.C.No.92/2024 at Belthangady Court and notice was served at the petitioner’s Mysuru address. Thus, the respondent’s contention that she is not a resident of Mysuru cannot be accepted. 8. It is a cardinal principle underlying matrimonial matters that, when the wife seeks transfer of proceedings by invoking Section 24 of CPC, the paramount consideration is the convenience of the wife, rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 9. The respondent is admittedly residing and employed at Abu Dhabi, while the petitioner is residing at Mysuru as is evident from the records. Further, M.C. No.169/2025 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court at Mysuru. Though it was filed after the husband’s petition, this factor cannot outweigh the hardship the wife would suffer if compelled to travel to Belthangady. Since both petitions are for dissolution of marriage, nor transfer of the husband’s case would risk conflicting decisions. Hence, transfer is warranted. 10. Learned counsel on both sides submit that M.C. No.169/2025 filed by the wife came to be listed on 30.10.2025 and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Petition is allowed. ii. MC No.92/2024 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady is withdrawn and transferred to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38554 CP No. 93 of 2025 the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru to be tried along with M.C. No.169/2025. iii. M.C. No.169/2025 is listed on 30.10.2025. In such circumstances, the parties are directed to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru on 30.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. iv. The Registry of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady shall forthwith transmit the entire records in M.C.No.169/2025 to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4