- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO.491 OF 2024 C/W CIVIL PETITION NO.159 OF 2025 IN C.P. No.491/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. S. PRIYA W/O. SRIRANGA DEVARAMANE URF HITHESH, D/O. D. SHRI SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. FLAT NO.301, FORTH FLOOR, PADMALAYA RESIDENCY, B BLOCK, VITTAL NAGAR 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.R. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SRIRANGA M.D. S/O. SHRI UMAPATHY DEVARAMANE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT ‘SRIRANGA’, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BAPUJI SCHOOL BACKSIDE, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577502. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO WITHDRAWING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN M.C.NO.22/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 JMFC AT HOLALKERE IN CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT BENGALURU TO CALL THE CASE IN M.C.NO.22/2024 ALONG WITH MC NO. 4945/2024. IN C.P. NO.159/2025 BETWEEN: SRI HITHESH URF SRIRANGA M.D. S/O SRI UMAPATHY DEVARAMANE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT ‘SRIRANGA’, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BEHIND BAPUJI SCHOOL, CHITRADURGA-577501. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI GURUDATH V.R., ADVOCATE AND SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PRIYA .S D/O D. SHRI SHARANAPPA W/O SRI RANGA DEVARAMANE URF HITHESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.301, FOURTH FLOOR, PADMALAYA RESIDENCY B BLOCK VITTAL NAGARA, 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.R. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.4945/2024 IN I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU TO THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HOLALKERE OR TO ANY OTHER NEARBY JURISDICTIONAL COURT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER CP.No.491/2024 is preferred by wife seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.22/2024, instituted by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking provision under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere to the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, where M.C.No.4945/2024 filed by wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights is pending adjudication. 2. CP.No.159/2025 is filed by the husband seeking to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.4945/2024, instituted by the petitioner-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights by invoking provision under Section 9 of the Act pending on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere, where M.C.No.22/2024 filed by husband seeking dissolution of marriage is pending adjudication. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 3. The parties herein are referred to as per their rank in CP.No.491/2025. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds: i. The petitioner is residing and employed in Bengaluru. The travel distance between Bengaluru and Holalkere is approximately 235 kilometers one way, and frequent travel to Holalkere would cause undue hardship and great inconvenience to the petitioner. ii. That the petitioner has already instituted M.C.No.4945/2024 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and in the event, if the proceedings - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 instituted by the respondent-husband is not transferred, there is every likelihood of conflicting judgment being rendered, which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for effective adjudication, both matters should be tried and disposed of by one and the same Court at Bengaluru. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband would urge the following grounds: i. That the respondent is unemployed and is already suffering from mental cruelty on account of the conduct of the petitioner-wife. He is presently residing at Chitradurga, and though the petitioner has shown her address as Bengaluru, she has not produced any material to establish that she is actually residing and employed there. Hence, her plea of hardship on account of distance lacks substantiation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 ii. It is further submitted that, an FIR and counter FIR have been lodged within the jurisdiction of Holalkere. In fact, in one such case lodged by the respondent’s mother, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and she is required to appear before the concerned Court at Holalkere in those proceedings. In such circumstances, there is no impediment for the petitioner-wife to attend the matrimonial proceedings instituted by the husband in M.C.No.22/2024 at Holalkere. iii. That the respondent also points out that he has aged parents to look after, and transferring the case to Bengaluru would cause him greater difficultly and hardship. Therefore, it is just and reasonable that M.C.No.4945/2024 filed by the wife at Bengaluru be transferred to Holalkere, instead of transferring the husband’s petition from Holalkere to Bengaluru. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 7. This Court has considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on records. 8. It is a cardinal principle reiterated in a catena of judgments in line underlying the matrimonial cases where a transfer is sought by the wife by invoking Section 24 CPC, the convenience of the wife is to be given paramount consideration, rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. In the present case, M.C.No.4945/2024 has been instituted by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and the same is pending before Principal Judge Family at Bengaluru. The respondent-husband has initiated M.C.No.22/2024 seeking dissolution of marriage, before the Court at Holalkere. Both proceedings arise out of the same marital relationship. The petitioner is residing and employed at Bengaluru, the travel distance between Bengaluru and Holakere is approximately 235 kilometers on way and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 would cause great inconvenience and undue hardship to the petitioner. 9. It is no doubt true that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and the respondent. One being at the instance of the petitioner and the other at the instances of the respondent’s mother, and that charge sheet has also been filed. However, the pendency of such Criminal case cannot by itself be a decisive ground to refuse transfer in matrimonial matters. The principle governing transfer of matrimonial cases is not the pendency of collateral criminal proceedings, but rather the convenience of the wife, particularly when she invokes Section 24 of CPC. If the respondent’s argument were to be accepted, it would virtually compel the wife to defend all matrimonial cases only at the place where FIRs have been lodged, which is not the mandate of law. Accordingly, the pendency of FIRs and charge sheet at Holalkere does not constitute a valid ground for insisting that M.C.No.4945/2024 to be transferred to Holalkere. On - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 the contrary, the balance of convenience continues to lie in favour of retaining the wife’s case at Bengaluru and transfer the husband’s case to that Court. 10. 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. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The C.P.No.491/2024 is allowed and C.P.No.159/2025 is dismissed. 1Civil Appeal No.4894/2022 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35982 CP No. 491 of 2024 C/W CP No. 159 of 2025 ii. M.C.No.22/2024 pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Holakere is withdrawn and transferred to the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and to be tried along with M.C.No.4945/2024. iii. The parties shall appear before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 16.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4