High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt. Bhadramma @ Gayathri vs K.C. Nanjundaswamy on 29 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhadramma @ Gayathri vs K.C. Nanjundaswamy on 29 November, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE K B1-IAIITHAVATSAEA-._I_I-._V

CIVIL PETITION NO.20/2010

SMTBHADRAIVEMA @ GAYATHRI, 

W/O. K. c. NANJUNDASWAMY, ~

MAJOR IN AGE,  

R/A.NO.5--A.

1ST'B' MAIN, 4TH CROSS,

SANJEEVINI NAGAR.  

NAGARABHAVI, ._  ;   
BANGALORE-- 560 072.    _ f»...."PETITIONER.

(BY  s£,S'IA.SS'TS§

AND:

K.c.2NAN.,IUN'DASwAMY;.___ _
S/0."'cHENIIApPA..SHETD{._

MAJOR._IN.AGE_, --- =   

R/A.KANIVE-vILI_.AGE..,J'

SOIv'iWARPE-"If 'I'ALUK.

Ei©DAGIID1STRIC_T..v ...RESP0NDENT.

'  "(BY  ADV).

  PETITION IS FILED U/S24 OF CPC.
PRAYING THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN THIS

  HON'BL§; COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER
 WIEHDRAWING THE PETITION M.C.NO.22/2007 PENDING

*  ON fI'I--IE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE {SRDN} AT
MADIKERI AND TRANSFER THE SAME FOR DISPOSAL T0

 I THE HON'BI..E FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, IN THE
 INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS COMING FOR HEARING ON

THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVING.



I'-.)

ORDER

The petitioner who is wife of respondent: is before this

court under Scc.2-4} of t.he Code of Civil Procedtirevpraflring

that the Case ir1 M.C.No.22/07 pending on t.he§l_:l.ti’i’ev»l_ofl

learned Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) at Madiigere, ma.y

to the Family Court. at Bangalore.

2. Learned counsel forthe petitioner

the petitioner has been residinglldllattdBangalore: since} 10 years
but the respondent 07 for
divorce on the file of at Madikere
giving wrong’ It “sui3:rnit’.ted that though

divorce caselsfiled year 2{)07, notice was served on

the petitioner’s = Kodagu for appearance oi’ the
petitionerllonll is also stated that the petitioner

is v_i’e;sidi1ig at Bangalore and her daughter is studying in

‘ E.ngi.nereri.n_g College. Bangalore.

‘ l’3;ll«.”_L»ea§r.lned counsel for the respondent submits that

there lnofgood ground made out by the petitioner for

2 pg “trar1sferrir1g the case.

Q 4. Since there is no dispute that the petitioner has

“been residing in Bangalore since 10 years and the

petitioners daughter Sangeetha is doing her lVi.tech.. Course

1

E

3
in RV. Engineering College. Bangalore. respondent. should
have filed petition for divorce in Family Court at Bangalore,
in View of S6019 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the pet.1’ti”oner

is entitled to seek transfer of the case.

5. In the resuii, petition is aI1o\vee1h._ ‘1″h_e’ieaee in–. it

M.C.No. 22/O7 pending on the file ‘1§’,I’i§”‘{“1E:§’Ci”V,(:i>”v”if1V

{Sr.Dn.] Madikere, is \vithdra_wn ane1”–made%’LAVer~’ to

Family Court at Bangalore, iof”id:iSposai,V’in acelorefsinoeiwith V

law. No costs.

*, ir:JUDGE

csg