Karnataka High Court
Chandakka W/O Kedaralinga Hitnalli vs Kedaralinga S/O Ramappa Hitnalli on 25 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
CP No. 200060 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CIVIL PETITION NO.200060 OF 2022 (RES-)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDAKKA
W/O KEDARALINGA HITNALLI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KHATEEJAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586 125.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KEDARALINGA
Digitally signed by S/O RAMAPPA HITNALLI
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE KSRTC,
UDAGI R/O. C/O KOTRESH, JAYA NAGARA EXTENSION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKAMALAGUR - 577 101.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CIVIL
PETITION AND THEREBY TRANSFER MATRIMONIAL CASE
NO.70/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKAMAGALUR TO HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
CP No. 200060 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
The petitioner who is the wife of respondent has
filed this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to transfer
M.C.No.70/2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Chikkamagalur to Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vijayapura.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has
contended that she is the legally weeded wife of
respondent. Respondent has filed M.C.No.70/2022 U/s
13(1)(ib) for divorce on the file of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chikamagalur. On the other hand, she
has filed Crl.Misc.No.417/2022 U/s 125 of Cr.PC.
seeking maintenance on the file of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Vijayapura. Only to harass the petitioner,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
respondent has filed the said case falsely alleging
desertion etc. Petitioner is permanently residing at
Hitanalli at Khatijapur village of Vijayapura, Taluk and
District. It would be very difficult for the petitioner to
travel to Chikkamagalur to attend the case. On the
other hand, respondent is an employee of KSRTC.
Comparative hardship would be less to the respondent if
M.C.No.70/2022 is transferred to the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura and hence the petition.
3. The notice of the petition is duly served on
the respondent. However, he has not appeared before
the Court and countered the claim of the petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the
records.
5. As evident from the copy of the petition in
M.C.No.70/2022 and the averments of the present
petition, the marriage of the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2018. While the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
petitioner claims that she lived with respondent and lead
happy married life. She even became pregnant.
However, she suffered miscarriage as respondent
administrated her a wrong medicine intentionally.
Respondent is having an illicit affair with one Bhoramma
Patil. When she questioned him she was beaten and
ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial home.
For some time she also stayed with her mother-in-law
and father-in-law. However, respondent did not join
her. Without any alterative petitioner has filed petition
for maintenance. As a counter blast respondent has
filed petition for divorce.
6. Thus, petitioner is seeking transfer of
M.C.No.70/2022 to the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vijayapura on the ground that the distance between
Vijayapura and Chikkamagalur about 490 Kms, and as
woman it is difficult to attend the Court at
Chikkamagalur.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
7. The reasons assigned for seeking transfer of
M.C.No.70/2022 from Chikkamagalur to Vijayapura is
not disputed by the respondent.
8. Of course, transferring M.C.No.70/2022 from
Chikkamagalur to Vijayapura, would certainly cause
inconvenience to the respondent. However, in the
judgments, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 in the
matter of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and
another and (2005) 12 SCC 237 in the matter of
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal
Pardeshi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in this
type of matrimonial cases the inconvenience of wife has
to be preferred over the inconvenience of the husband,
especially when the litigation has been initiated by the
husband.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and relying upon above two decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered
NC: 2025:KHC-K:499
opinion that the inconvenience that would be caused to
the petitioner is more, when compared to that of the
respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief sought in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
I. The petition filed under Section 24 of the
Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 is
allowed.
II. The M.C.No.70/2022 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chikkamagalur filed by the respondent is
withdrawn and transferred to the Court of
the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vijayapura.
III. Principal Judge Family Court, Vijayapura is
directed to take the matter on record and
proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
SMP
