Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumangala Hiremath @ Vishalakshi ... vs Shri. B. S. Kashinath S/O. B.M. ... on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147
CP No. 100158 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL PETITION NO. 100158 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMANGALA HIREMATH @ VISHALAKSHI
W/O. B.S. KASHINATH
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT. ROTTIGAWADA, TQ: KUNDUGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD-581 195.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
SHRI B.S. KASHINATH S/O. B.M. SIDDESHWARAIAH
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/AT. H.NO.729/2-B, 2ND CROSS
THYAGARAJA ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA
MYSURU-570004.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.09.20
10:56:30 +0530
THIS CIVIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE G
AND W.C.NO.28/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSORE, TO THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT KUNDGOL, 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 IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147
CP No. 100158 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both the sides.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer G & W.C.No.28/2025, pending on the file of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol, on the following grounds.
"i) The act of the respondent is highly illegal & has filed a petition under section 7 (b) of G & W.C against the petitioner with ulterior motive only to harass the petitioner.
ii) Petitioner also state that the proceedings are causing heavy burden as petitioner is not having any independent source of income as being housewife & is living with her old aged parents who are not financially strong & also suffering from ill-health due to which it is very difficult to travel to Mysuru on every date of proceedings.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR
iii) The distance between Kundgol to Mysuru is around 460 Km therefore it highly inconvenience to the petitioner with ill-health to travel frequently.
iv) On the other hand, no hardship will be caused on the other side to attend the court proceedings at Kundgol."
3. Learned counsel for respondent has filed written objections contending that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has filed this petition suppressing true facts of the case. The petitioner has filed this petition with an ulterior motive only to harass the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent herein was solemnized on 15.05.2013 at Gadag as averred in paragraph No.4 of the petition. It is also the admitted fact that after the marriage the petitioner and respondent have resided at Mysuru till 14.02.2025. It is submitted that in the wedlock, two children by name Monisha and Nagarathna were born and now the children are staying with respondent father and studying in JSS English Medium Primary School, Ramanuja -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR Road, Mysuru. The petitioner developed illicit intimacy with other men shortly after marriage leading to constant harassment, mental and physical cruelty towards respondent. The petitioner was lazy, refused to perform household duties and neglected the children. On 14.02.2025 the petitioner physically and mentally abused the respondent, picked up quarrels and left the matrimonial home, abandoning the children. Since then the children have been residing under sole custody and care of the respondent father at Mysuru. It is submitted that the children are school going and Monisha is studying in 5th Standard and Nagarathna in 3rd Standard. The petitioner has left the company of the respondent and the children. The respondent alone is taking care of the children and continuing their education at Mysuru. If the present petition is allowed, it would cause immense hardship to the children as respondent would be required to travel frequently with them and their education would be disrupted. The respondent is working as a DTP operator at Bengaluru -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR Press, Mysuru. The respondent's daily routine involves cooking, feeding the children, sending them to school and then attending the work. The respondent single handedly managing all their needs including education, health and emotional support. Such being the case, transferring the case to Kundagol would impose severe inconvenience to the respondent as the respondent cannot afford to leave the children unattended or disrupt their schooling for long travels. Further, it is submitted that, in contrast, the petitioner is young (29 years), healthy and resides with her parents in Kundagol. Petitioner has no dependent children or responsibilities that prevent her from travelling to Mysuru. The petitioner's claim of inconvenience due to distance is exaggerated and unsubstantiated. It is submitted that Kundagol to Mysuru is well connected by road and rail with multiple buses and trains available daily. The distance is manageable for an able-bodied adult like the petitioner especially since petitioner has family support. Further, the plea of the petitioner appears to be a tactic to -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR harass respondent and force the respondent to incur additional expenses and delay the resolution of the guardianship proceedings. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner while leaving the company of the respondent and children has physically abused the children and respondent and threatened to take away the life of the respondent and children if they try to contact the petitioner. Such being the case, there is imminent life threat to the respondent and the children. Hence, the present transfer petition may be dismissed, considering the severity and safety of the minor children.
4. To substantiate the contentions of the objections, the respondent has produced Annexure R.1 to R.5 and also the decision of this Court in Sushmitha B.L. vs. Raghavendra B.R., reported in 2025 SCC Online Karnataka 2, which is at Annexure R.6. On these grounds, the learned counsel for respondent has sought for rejection of this petition.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. The petitioner's counsel would submit that the present petitioner has filed Civil Petition No.100092/2025 for transfer of M.C.No.227/2025 filed by this respondent before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. This petition is allowed by this Court by order dated 04.08.2025 and further he would submit that the petitioner is unable to bear the expenses to go to Mysuru to attend the Court and reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and sought for allowing this petition.
6. The respondent's counsel has reiterated the grounds and the averments made in the statement of objections and sought for dismissal of this petition.
7. I have examined the materials placed before this court. This Court has passed order in Civil Petition No.100092/2025 dated 04.08.2025 to transfer M.C.No.227/2025, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundagol, for disposal in accordance with law. But this -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR order will not come in the way to allow this petition. Hence, in this regard, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the present respondent has filed the petition under Section 7(b) of the Guardianship and Wards Act to declare that the petitioner is the guardian of minor daughters in G & W.C.No.28/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru.
8. It is also not in dispute that the children Monisha B.K. and Nagarathna B.K. are studying in JSS English Medium School at Mysuru. The school certificate issued by the said school is also produced. To safeguard the interest of the minor children, it is not just and proper to transfer this case as sought for. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings are causing heavy burden as the petitioner is not having any independent source of income as being housewife and is living with her old aged parents, who are financially not strong and also suffering from ill health due to which it is very difficult for her to travel to -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12147 CP No. 100158 of 2025 HC-KAR Mysuru on every date of hearing. If this Court passes an order to direct the respondent to bear the expenses, this grievance can be solved. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
ii) However, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- (two thousand rupees only) per hearing for appearance of petitioner, pertaining to G & W.C.No.28/2025 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, till the disposal of that case.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK CT: CMU.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44