IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL PETITION NO. 327 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SMT NAVYASHREE B K W/O PUNEETH S, D/O KADA BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, GORAVANAHALLI ROAD, MADDUR, MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI

1. SRI S PUNEETH B Location: High S/O SUNDAR S, Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO. J2203, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, MANTRI SERENITY APARTMENT, SUBRAMANYAPURA, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062 …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF M.C. PETITION NO.3141/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU TO THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT, THEN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET WITH.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The wife has filed the present petition under Section

24 of the CPC with the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased pass an appropriate order for transfer of M.C.Petition No.3141/2025 filed by the petitioner presently pending before the IInd Addl, Principal Judge family Court at Bengaluru to the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya District, then the ends of justice would be met with."

2. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:

A petition for divorce came to be filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.3141/2025 on account of the strained matrimonial relationship between the parties.

3. The wife is residing at Maddur. She also contends that the husband is also a resident of Maddur and the parties last lived as husband and wife at Maddur. Thus, no part of cause of action has taken place in Bangalore and the filing of the divorce petition on the file of the Family Court, Bangalore, is only to harass the petitioner-wife on account of the geographical distance as well as the financial incapacity.

4. Therefore, she sought for the transfer of the petition from the Family Court, Bangalore, to Maddur.

5. This court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent in view of the fact that geographical distance and financial incapacity are no longer valid parameters for the transfer of a pending case from one court to another court in view of the video conferencing facility.

6. Further, the question of jurisdiction is a matter that is to be urged by the wife before the Family Court, Bangalore, in the pending matrimonial case in M.C.No.3141/2025 as a preliminary issue.

7. If the court is of the opinion that no part of cause of action has taken place at Bangalore, necessarily the petition will be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.

8. With that liberty for the petitioner to appear through the videoconferencing, the revision petition needs to be disposed of.

9. However, if the petitioner files an application before the Family Court at Bangalore to appear through video conferencing and effectively participate in the proceedings, the Trial Judge shall permit the wife to do so.

10. With that direction the following:

ORDER

The Civil Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT-SG