Karnataka High Court
Smt Yasmin W/O. Rajabakash ... vs Shri Rajabakash S/O. Moula Sab ... on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
CP No. 100187 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CIVIL PETITION NO. 100187 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASMIN
W/O. RAJABAKASH BADAKAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT. PRAGATI COLONY,
2ND CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI RAJABAKASH
S/O. MOULA SAB BADAKAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC. GOVT. SCHOOL TEACHER,
Digitally
R/AT. KURUBARA-MALLUR,
signed by
YASHAVANT TALUK: SAVANUR,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.11.20
DIST. HAVERI-581118
14:49:15
+0530 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SADIK KANVI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE O.S.NO.355/2025 AS PENDING BEFORE
THE HONBLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAVANUR TO THE
HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT HUBBALLI AND DIRECT TO
DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
CP No. 100187 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 24
of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking transfer
of O.S.No.355/2025 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Savanur to the Court of the Principal Family Court, Hubballi for
disposal in accordance with law.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
married to the respondent in the year 2013 at Mattikatti village
of Kundagol Taluk as per the customs of the Mohammedan law
and out of their wedlock, there are two children. Then the
dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent and the
petitioner filed a petition against the respondent under Section
144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
'BNSS') before the Principal Family Court, Hubballi in
Crl.Misc.No.185/2025. Subsequently, the respondent has filed a
suit in O.S.No.355/2025 seeking restitution of conjugal rights
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
HC-KAR
and mandatory injunction at Civil Judge Court, Savanur. It is
contented that it is difficult for her to visit Savanur whenever the
case is listed and therefore, she has sought for transfer of the
O.S.No.355/2005 to the Family Court at Hubballi.
4. The petition is opposed by the respondent contending
that the petitioner is in fact staying at Mattikatti but not at
Hubballi and her deposition before the Family Court, Hubballi
shows that she is falsely claiming that she is residing at her
brother's house at Hubballi. Therefore, he submits that the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. On a careful perusal of the records, it may be seen
that the petitioner and the respondent are governed by the
Mohammedan law and therefore, the petitioner having been left
with nothing for her maintenance, filed a petition under Section
144 of the BNSS at Family Court, Hubballi. Evidently, the
respondent has filed an original suit for restitution of conjugal
rights and mandatory injunction.
6. It is pertinent to note that admittedly the petitioner is
having two children and he is looking after the children also. It is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
HC-KAR
not the case of the respondent that he is paying any
maintenance for the children. In that view of the matter, the
grievance of the petitioner that it is very difficult for her to
attend the Court at Savanur appears to be fair and proper.
7. The judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. M. V.
Rekha Vs. Sri Sathya @ Suraj1 at Paragraph No.15 has held as
hereunder:
"The cardinal principle for exercise of
power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that ends of justice demand
the transfer of the suit, appeal or other
proceeding. In matrimonial matters,
wherever Courts are called upon to consider
the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take
into consideration the economic soundness
of either of the parties, the social strata of
the spouses and behavioural pattern, their
standard of life antecedent to marriage and
subsequent thereon and the circumstances
of either of the parties in eking out their
livelihood and under whose protective
umbrella they are seeking their sustenance
to life. Generally, it is the wife's
convenience which must be looked at while
ILR 2010 KAR 5407
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
HC-KAR
considering transfer. Further, when two
proceedings in different Courts which raise
common question of fact and law and when
the decisions are interdependent, it is
desirable that they should be tried together
by the same Judge so as to avoid
multiplicity in trial of the same issues and
conflict of decisions (See Smt.NandaKishori
v. S.B.Shiua Prakash AIR 1993 Kar 87,
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. AIR
2002 SC 396 and Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri
Vinayak Pujar ILR 2007 Kar 4561)."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In that view of the matter, it would be proper to
transfer the O.S.No.355/2025 to the Family Court, Hubballi,
where the petition filed by the petitioner is pending. Hence the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The O.S.No.355/2025 pending on the file of
Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Hubballi to consider
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15885
HC-KAR
along with Criminal Miscellaneous
No.185/2025 in accordance with law.
iii. Intimate both the Courts accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
