- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO.261 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. C.U. SUMA W/O SRI SANJAY B.G. D/O SRI C.B. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, OPPOSITE TO POST OFFICE, BIRURU, CHICKAMAGALURU-577 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SANJAY B.G. S/O SRI R. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.001, SARASWATHI NILAYA, SITE NO.46/47, 1ST STAGE, 9TH CROSS, ASHRAYA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560048. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER WITHDRAWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 IN M.C.NO.4446/2023 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED IV PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THEREAFTER TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 COURT, DAVANAGERE FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. 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.4446/2023, instituted by the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), pending on the file of the IV Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Davanagere. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds: i. The petitioner is presently residing at Birur along with her daughter in the house of the respondent, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 pursuant to the order passed in Crl. Misc. No.390/2023. The minor daughter is admitted to school at Birur. ii. The travel distance from Birur to Bengaluru is around 250 kilometers one way, which causes great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner in attending proceedings at Bengaluru. iii. The petitioner has instituted and is prosecuting Crl. Misc. No.390/2023 at the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere. iv. Petitioner’s parents are also residing at Davanagere and therefore, the place is convenient and accessible for the petitioner. v. The distance between Birur and Davanagere is around 100 kilometers which is comparatively shorter and more convenient for the petitioner to travel along with her minor child. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that: i. The petitioner is residing at Birur in the house of the respondent. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner to transfer the proceedings from Bengaluru to Davanagere is not maintainable, as the petitioner is not a resident of Davanagere. It is further submitted that no valid or sufficient grounds have been made out by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the case to Davanagere. Mere pendency of Criminal Miscellaneous at Davanagere does not by itself justify transfer. ii. The respondent points out that the petitioner had earlier filed CP No.281/2019, which she subsequently withdrew without seeking liberty to file a fresh petition. In such circumstances, the present attempt to seek transfer of the case to Davanagere is improper, unwarranted and an abuse of the process of Court and the prayer to transfer deserves to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 5. 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. This proposition of law is reiterated in catena of judgments in line. The Apex Court in Sumita Singh Vs Kumar Sanjay and Another1(Sumita Singh) and N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2(Aishwarya), has consistently held that when wife seeks transfer of matrimonial case, the primary consideration is her convenience and such convenience has to be given primacy over the inconvenience of the husband. 6. As could be seen from the records, the respondent-husband had instituted M.C.No.2493/2019 before the Family Court at Bengaluru. When the petitioner-wife sought transfer of the said proceedings by filing CP No.281/2019, the respondent withdrew 1 (2001) 10 SCC 41 2Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 M.C.No.2493/2019, thereby rendering the transfer petition infructuous consequently, the petitioner also withdraw CP No.281/2019. Hence, the said withdrawal cannot now be taken as a ground by the respondent to contend that present civil petition for transfer is not maintainable. 7. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing at Birur. The distance between Birur and Bengaluru is approximately 250 kms one way, whereas the distance between Birur and Davanagere, where the petitioner parents are residing and where criminal miscellaneous No.390/2023 is pending, is about 100 kms. Considering these aspects, it is evident that the convenience of the petitioner-wife would be better served by transferring the case to Davanagere, rather than requiring her to undertake the hardship of traveling to Bengaluru at a distance of 250 kms. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 8. The Apex Court in the case of Aishwarya has held at paragraph No.9 which reads as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Petition is allowed. ii. M.C. No.4446/2023 pending on the file of the IV Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36310 CP No. 261 of 2025 withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Davanagere to be tried along with Crl. Misc. No.390/2023. iii. The parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Davanagere on 15.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21