Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nivya D/O Sukumara Boppuri Aliyas ... vs Sri. Richard S/O Rujar Mirinda on 23 September, 2025
-1-
CP No. 100035 of 2025
RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL PETITION NO.100035 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. NIVYA D/O. SUKUMARA BOPPURI @
W/O. RICHARD MIRANDA
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. NIL
R/O. 8/C, GODS GIFT,
ALKAPURI LAYOUT, RC COLONY,
HUBBALLI 580023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.N. JANCHINAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RICHARD S/O. RUJAR MIRINDA
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
R/O. 187/2, KRISHNAMANGALAM,
Digitally signed by
2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
MARUTI NAGAR. YALAHANKA,
Date: 2025.09.24
10:41:48 +0530 BANGALORE-560064.
PERMANENT R/O. SAMSI KUDRIGI,
TQ. HONNAVAR,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADAMAHARASHTRA 416309.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NIRMALA DODAMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED U/SEC.24 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO PASS AN ORDER OF TRANSFERRING THE M.C.NO.51/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HONNAVAR,
-2-
CP No. 100035 of 2025
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA TO THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY
COURT HUBBALLI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
This petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil
Procedure, seeking to transfer MC No.51 of 2024 pending on the
file of Senior Civil Judge, Honnavar, District: Uttara Kannada to
the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is having a child of fifteen months and is
finding it difficult in travelling to Honnavar which is 180 kms from
Hubballi. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing at her
parents house along with her child. The petitioner is unemployed
and she is not capable to maintain herself and also to bear the
travelling expenses. It is further submitted that the journey from
from Hubballi to Honnavar is around 5 to 6 hours which will cause
inconvenience to herself as well as the infant. It is submitted
that the respondent and his family members have an ill-motive to
cause harassment to the petitioner and therefore, has
purposefully filed the divorce petition at Honnavar though the
-3-
CP No. 100035 of 2025
respondent is well aware that petitioner is having an infant. On
all these grounds, it is sought to allow the petition.
Along with the petition, the petitioner has produced copy of the
petition filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act,
1869 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Honnavar. Petitioner
has also filed certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to said
MC No.51 of 2024.
3. The respondent appeared through his counsel and
filed written objection contending that the petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the
petitioner is the legally wedded wife and their marriage was
solemnized on 28th November, 2019 at Samsi Church, Honnavar
according to Roman Catholic rites and customs. It is also
admitted that the marriage was registered at Sub-Registrar office
at Honnavar. It is also admitted that out of their wedlock a boy
was born on 15th October, 2023. Respondent loves his son dearly
and has always been concerned about the welfare and well-being
of his child. Respondent always acted in a responsible manner as
a husband and as a father and had made genuine efforts to
maintain peace and harmony in the matrimonial relationship. It
is stated that the petitioner herself misrepresented the facts and
-4-
CP No. 100035 of 2025
attempted to falsely project herself as a victim while concealing
her own contact. It is also admitted that he has filed MC No.51
of 2024 seeking divorce against the petitioner before the Court of
Senior Civil Judge at Honnavar. In the said petition, petitioner
has entered appearance through her advocate. Further, the
claim regarding the travel expenses from Hubballi to Honnavar is
denied as untenable. It is stated that the distance between two
places is approximately 180 kms and public transportation is
regularly available at a reasonable cost. It is also stated that the
journey does not cause any extraordinary hardship as alleged in
the petition. Further denying the other averments made in the
petition, it is sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have examined the materials placed before me. It
is stated in the petition that the petitioner is an unemployed. The
respondent has not placed any material to show that the
petitioner has got sufficient means to bear the travelling
expenses from Hubballi to Honnavar. It is an admitted fact that
the petitioner is having a small child which is aged fifteen
months. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, it is just
and proper to allow the petition. Resultantly, I proceed to pass
following:
-5-
CP No. 100035 of 2025
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed;
ii) The MC No.51 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Honnavar, District: Uttara Kannada is
withdrawn and made over to the Court of
Principal, Judge, Family Court at Hubballi for
disposal in accordance with law;
iii) Registry to send the copy of this order to both the
quotes for taking necessary action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
CT-CMU
