IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL PETITION NO.19 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJA D/O RAMAMURTHY, W/O SHIVAKUMAR R., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52/1, 3^RD MAIN, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, RT NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SURESH GOWDA B.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHIVA KUMAR .R S/O LATE RAMAIAH, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MAHALAKSHMI B M RESIDING AT PLOT NO.07, Location: HIGH VADDARAHALLI, COURT OF DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–561205.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO TRANSFER MC.NO.106/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA TO PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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.106/2024, instituted by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking provisions under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short), pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur to the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru where M.C.No.5282/2024 instituted by the petitioner-wife is pending.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2006, as per the customs prevailing in their community. Due to strained relation, the parties are residing separately for quite some time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing and employed at Bengaluru, and has care and custody of her minor daughter, aged about 13 years. It is urged that the travel distance between Bengaluru and Doddaballapur is approximately 50 kilometers one way and frequent travel to Doddaballapur for every hearing causes undue hardship and great inconvenience.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation, it was agreed that the respondent would provide accommodation at Doddaballapur town. It is submitted that such accommodation was provided, and the petitioner resided there for two months. The respondent contends that the petitioner is not residing in Bengaluru and no material has been placed to substantiate her claim.

6. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner resides at Doddaballapur only temporarily and under duress due to harassment from the respondent, which compelled her to shift back to Bengaluru for a employment. It is further submitted that notice in M.C.No.106/2024 was in fact served upon her at her Bengaluru address, and therefore, the contention that she is not residing at Bengaluru is untenable.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

8. From the material available, it is evident that the petitioner has already instituted M.C.No.5282/2024 before the Family Court at Bengaluru seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent thereafter filed M.C.No.106/2024 at Doddaballapur. The records also disclose that notice was served on the petitioner at her Bengaluru address.

9. It is a cardinal principle underlying matrimonial matters that, when the wife seeks transfer of proceedings by invoking the provisions of Section 24 of CPC, the paramount consideration is the convenience of the wife, rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband.

10. The petitioner is presently employed and residing at Bengaluru with her minor daughter, aged about 13 years. Even though the travel distance between Bengaluru and Dodda