1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. YASHASWINI M ITAGI, AGED: 27 YEARS, W/O MR. KISHAN GOURANNAVAR, D/O SRI. MUDAKAPPA ITAGI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: HOUSE NO.E-04, 3RD FLOOR, SILK BOARD STAFF QUARTERS, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, LALBAG WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTARAJ .T, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. KISHAN GOURANNAVAR, S/O SIDDAPPA GOURANNAVAR, AGED: 28 YEARS, OCC: PVT. JOB AT BENGALURU, R/O: JIDDI ONI, AMARGOL, HUBBALLI-580 025, DIS: DHARWAD, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L. S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER M.C.NO.419/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, TO THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This petition is filed by wife for transfer of M.C. 419 of 2025 filed by respondent-husband at Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to Family Court, Bangalore. 2. It is stated by the petitioner-wife that her marriage with respondent-husband was performed on 13.03.2024 at KPTCL Convention Hall, Gopanakoppa, Hubballi. Since both the parties are employed, after marriage, they started residing in Bangalore. It is also stated that without any prior mediation or reasonable communication, her husband filed a divorce petition at Hubballi. Now she is residing at Bangalore with her aged parents and undergoing private counselling due to emotional distress arising from the matrimonial dispute. The distance from Bangalore to Hubballi is 400 kilometres and it is inconvenient, unsafe and financially burdensome for her to travel repeatedly to attend the proceedings at Hubballi. Therefore, requested for transfer of the said case to the Family Court, Bangalore. 3 3. In an objection filed by the respondent-husband, he has denied all the facts, except the performance of his marriage with petitioner-wife at KPTCL Convention Hall, Gopanakoppa, Hubballi. He mainly contended that both of them are from same area, i.e. Amargol of Hubballi city. They have grown up in the same area, studied from the same institution and they know each other from 25 years. Her father worked in a Central Silk Board and recently retired. She is having maternal home at Hubballi. She is financially sound and she frequently travels to Hubballi to her parental home. As such, it is not inconvenient for petitioner to travel to Hubballi to attend case. 4. There is no consummation of marriage at Bangalore. The respondent-husband further filed the passport and Adhar Card of the petitioner-wife to show that she is residing at Hubballi, but he himself in paragraph number 8 of his petition has clearly admitted that presently both of them are working at Bangalore. For conciliation proceedings, he had attended for five times and his wife attended only for one time. Initially, his father-in-law has not informed petitioner-wife about conciliation and later, when Court gave specific direction, the petitioner-wife attended only once. He 4 further stated that both of them are working in hybrid mode and, as such, they can work from home. 5. In the present petition, the address of the respondent is shown as private job at Bangalore and the appointment letter of the wife/petitioner is already filed. This shows that she is working in Bangalore. But, after arising of the dispute, it seems that she is residing with her parents at Bangalore. As the respondent is also working at Bangalore, the filing of divorce petition before Hubballi Court is not only inconvenient for the petitioner-wife but also for the respondent-husband. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to transfer M.C. No.419 of 2025 from Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to Family Court, Bangalore, for the convenience of both parties. Ordered accordingly. In the result, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR