Karnataka High Court
Smt Vijayalaxmi W/O Divyachetana ... vs Divyachetana S/O Shivanagouda ... on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16370
CP No. 100211 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CIVIL PETITION NO.100211 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O. DIVYACHETANA NARENDRA,
BEFORE MARRIAGE VIJALAXMI
D/O. SHEKHARAPPA MAJJIGUDDA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ANTHUR-BENTHUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVYACHETANA
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA NARENDRA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
R/O. VINOBA NAGAR, NYAMATHI,
signed by
YASHAVANT TQ. NYAMATHI, DIST. DAVANAGERE,
NARAYANKAR
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR Date: NOW R/O. PLOT NO. 21, RENUKANAGAR,
2025.11.28
10:40:01 SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
+0530
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
TRANSFER M.C.NO.235/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD TO THE HON'BLE 1ST
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT GADAG, 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:16370
CP No. 100211 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the respondent.
2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent is
seeking transfer of M.C.No.235/2025 pending on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court Dharwad to the I-Additional Family
Court, Gadag, where the petition filed by the petitioner in
Crl.Misc.No.190/2025 seeking maintenance under Section 144 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is pending.
3. The petitioner contends that after her marriage on
31.11.2022, there were differences between her and the
respondent and the respondent started neglecting her and now
she is staying in her parents' house. It is contended that the
respondent has filed M.C.No.235/2025 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dharwad seeking restitution of conjugal
rights. It is submitted that since she is residing at Gadag, it
would be convenient for her to attend the Court at Gadag and
therefore, the petition be allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16370
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the respondent has filed the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights and he is ready to take the
petitioner back to the marital home. It is submitted that the
respondent is M.A., Graduate and unemployed and therefore, it
would be difficult for him to go to Gadag to conduct the case. It
is trite law that if there are two petitions arising out of disputes
between the husband and wife and they are filed in two different
courts, it is preferable to transfer them to one and the same
Court.
5. Further, having regard to the judgment of this Court
in the case of in the case of Smt. M. V. Rekha v. Sri Sathya @
Suraj1 the law liens in favour of the wife. This Court in the said
judgment at paragraph 15 held as under:
"15. 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
ILR 2010 KAR 5507
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16370
HC-KAR
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
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. Nanda Kishori v. S.B.
Shivaprakash [AIR 1993 Kar 87.], Sumita
Singh v. Kumar Sanjay [(2001) 10 SCC 41 : AIR
2002 SC 396.], and Smt. Swarna Gouri v. Sri
Vinayak Pujar [ILR 2007 Kar 4561.])."
6. In view of the above, the Courts have to prefer a
place where the wife is residing. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The M.C.No.235/2025 pending before the
Family Court, Dharwad is hereby withdrawn
and transferred to the I-Additional Principal
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16370
HC-KAR
Judge, Family Court, Gadag, where
Crl.Misc.No.190/2025 filed by the petitioner is
pending for disposal in accordance with law.
(iii) Intimate both the Courts accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
