Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala Alias Pankaja W/O Manoj ... vs Shri Manoj S/O Gurudath Pai on 4 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14975
CP No. 100164 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CIVIL PETITION NO. 100164 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHASHIKALA @ PANKAJA W/O. MANOJ PAI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/AT. HOUSE NO.18,
KALIDAS NAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI MANOJ S/O. GURUDATH PAI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/AT. H.NO.17, 1ST CROSS,
HASMAT COLLEGE, NORTH BANGALORE,
YASHAVANT KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560043.
NARAYANKAR
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.11.05
SRI. MAHAMMADALI, ADVOCATE)
14:27:32 +0530
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE MC NO.5183/2020 AS PENDING BEFORE
THE HON'BLE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT
BANGALORE TO THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE 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:14975
CP No. 100164 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 is seeking transfer of
M.C.No.5183/2020 from the Court of the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru to the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hubballi on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of
Hubballi and it would be inconvenient for her to attend the Court
at Bengaluru.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has
filed M.C.No.5183/2020 seeking decree of divorce at the Family
Court, Bengaluru. It is contended that the petitioner finds it
difficult to attend the Court at Bengaluru and therefore, she
could not defend her case properly. Therefore,
M.C.No.5183/2020 be transferred to the Family Court at
Hubballi.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent reiterating his contentions in the objection statement
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14975
HC-KAR
contends that M.C.No.5183/2020 is in the final stages and both
the parties had also filed written arguments so that the Family
Court could proceed with the judgment. It is submitted that at
that stage, the petitioner sought reopening of the case for cross-
examination of PW.1 and also sought to change her advocate. It
is contended that when the matter is at the final stages of the
inquiry, it would not be proper to transfer the M.C.No.5183/2020
to the Court at Hubballi.
5. On perusal of the records, it appears that initially the
petitioner had appeared before the Court at Bengaluru and after
engaging with counsel, she tried to defend her case. The PW.1
was cross-examined at some length and thereafter, it appears
that the matter was posted for the evidence of the petitioner.
The records also reveal that the trial has proceeded to
substantial extent. Therefore, it would not be proper to transfer
the said matter from the Court at Bengaluru to Hubballi, when
the trial is half way. The only ground that is urged by the
petitioner before this Court is that she is unable to travel to
Bengaluru and attend the Court since she has no income and she
is staying with her parents at Hubballi. It is submitted that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14975
HC-KAR
respondent is working in a real estate company and therefore, he
can afford to come to Hubballi.
6. When the trial is half way through it would not be
proper to shift the said matter from the Court at Bengaluru to
Hubballi. Any such transfer has to happen prior to the
commencement of the trial. Therefore, in the interest of the trial
and to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceeding before a
Court, it would not be proper to transfer the M.C.No.5183/2020
to the Family Court at Hubballi. However, the grievance of the
petitioner that she is unable to bear the travel expenses, need to
be considered.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
also submits that he is ready to bear the expenses of the travel
of the petitioner to Bengaluru. In that view of the matter, the
prayer for transfer of the case to the Court at Hubballi deserves
to be rejected while directing respondent No.1 to pay a sum of
₹10,000/- per visit of petitioner to Bengaluru for hearing of
M.C.No.5183/2020.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14975
HC-KAR
8. The respondent is directed to transfer the said
amount to the account of the petitioner directly.
9. In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
