In suits for permanent injunction regarding child custody, the territorial jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the minor child (the ward) under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, overriding the general matrimonial principle of prioritizing the wife's convenience for transfer.

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF TRANSFER OF O.S.NO.137/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, TO THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAVALGUND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

1. This is the petition filed under Section 24 CPC, praying for transfer of O.S.No.137/2025 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund.

2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2019 at Shri Kshetra Yadur Shri Veerbhadreshwara Temple, Chikkodi Taluk, as per the customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, petitioner gave birth to a male child on 14.10.2020. It is further stated that, during May 2024, respondent separated the petitioner from her son, Tapeshwar Hiremath, and since then petitioner is staying with her parents; on many occasions she tried to take custody of the child, but it went in vain. The minor child-Master Tapeshwar, is staying with the respondent, but he is not taking proper care of the child. The petitioner has no sufficient income to meet her routine expenses. She is staying with her parents and brothers, who are also very poor. The petitioner apprehends threat to her life from the respondent, and it is difficult for her to travel to Bengaluru. Hence, she prayed for allowing the petition.

3. On service of notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and filed objections to the petition, wherein he admitted the marital relationship between the parties and that the petitioner gave birth to the child on 14.10.2020; and both the petitioner and respondent are staying apart since 15.10.2022. He denied all other contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the Child Welfare Committee for custody of the minor child. However, the Committee, without proper knowledge of the proceedings, issued an exparte direction to the police to take custody of the minor child. The petitioner and her brothers are making serious attempts to take away the child from the custody of respondent by high-handed means. Hence, respondent approached the Family Court, Bengaluru, and sought an injunction in O.S.No.137/2025. The respondent is having apprehension of harassment from the petitioner and her family members to attend the Court at Navalagund. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

4. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for consideration:

“Whether transfer of O.S.No.137/2025 from Family Court, Bengaluru, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund, is required?

5. Finding of this court on the above point is in NEGATIVE for the following:

REASONS

6. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, and they have got a minor child who was born on 14.10.2020. Presently, admittedly, the child is with the respondent, who is residing in Bengaluru. Only at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the child is with the parents of the respondent at Dharwad and not at Bengaluru. However, no material is produced and there is no pleading on this point.

7. Learne