Wife Seeks Transfer Of Husband's Divorce Case After 5 Years: Karnataka High Court Rejects Her Plea, Says Delay Shows Acquiescence
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskKARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court dismissed a wife's petition seeking to transfer her husband's divorce case from Anekal to Bengaluru, noting that she approached the Court nearly five years after the divorce proceedings began.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani held that a 45-km travel distance, heavy traffic, and unsubstantiated health claims were not sufficient grounds to transfer the matrimonial proceedings, especially when the wife had already participated in the case for several years.
The couple married on 9 June 2004 and had two children. Following matrimonial disputes, the wife started living separately in Bengaluru for the children's education.
In 2021, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bengaluru Rural.
The wife later approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to transfer the divorce case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
She alleged that her husband had deliberately failed to disclose her actual residential address in the divorce petition to harass her.
She further claimed that travelling about 45 km from Bengaluru to Anekal was difficult because of heavy traffic. She added that the matter was sometimes adjourned before she could reach the court.
The wife also cited health problems, responsibility for her children, and alleged irregular payment of interim maintenance as reasons to transfer the proceedings.
However, the husband opposed the transfer petition, pointing out that the wife had approached the High Court five years after the divorce case was filed and four years after entering appearance.
He argued that the wife's transfer petition was intended to delay the divorce proceedings.
The husband also disputed the allegations regarding interim maintenance payments. He assured the Court that he would deposit three months' maintenance in a lump sum and cooperate in completing the trial without unnecessary adjournments.
After examining the circumstances, the Karnataka High Court observed:
"Normally, in case of a petition by wife for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, her convenience weighs in. But one glaring fact in the instant case is that this petition was filed five years into the pendency of the divorce proceedings, four years after entering appearance, and more than a year after the application to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. Above dates would disclose acquiescence on part of petitioner,"
The Court also rejected the wife's health-related grounds for transfer, noting that she failed to produce medical documents or sufficient details to support her claims.
The High Court further observed:
"Insofar as ill-health, no documents are produced, nor particulars of ill-health pleaded to inspire consideration. Even if travel route from Bengaluru to Anekal is dense with traffic, same would not be a ground for transfer."
The Court also noted that the children were aged 21 and 16, and the wife could seek permission to attend the trial through video conferencing.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the wife's transfer petition but allowed her to seek permission from the trial court to participate through video conferencing.
The Court also directed the trial court to complete the long-pending divorce proceedings within three months and recorded the husband's undertaking to deposit three months' interim maintenance together.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Relevance In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) | Empowers the High Court or District Court to transfer or withdraw cases between competent subordinate courts. | The wife invoked this provision to seek transfer of her husband's divorce proceedings from Anekal to Bengaluru. The High Court rejected her request. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | S v. R |
| Court | Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru |
| Bench | Justice Ravi V Hosmani |
| Judgment Date | 1 October 2026 |
| Case Number | Civil Petition No. 129 of 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:KHC:54668 |
| CNR Number | KAHC010267822026 |
| Original Divorce Case | M.C. No. 89/2021 |
| Wife's Counsel | Sri Manjunatha Rao Lokande N, appearing for Sri M. Prabhakara |
| Husband's Counsel | Sri Sriramkishan B.R. |
| Transfer Requested | Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru |
| Decision | Wife's transfer petition dismissed |
| Further Direction | Trial to be completed preferably within three months from 27 October 2026; video conferencing request to be considered sympathetically |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Wife's Transfer Plea Dismissed: Karnataka High Court refused to transfer the husband's divorce case after nearly five years.
- 45-Km Distance Not Enough: Heavy traffic and travel difficulties cannot automatically justify transferring matrimonial proceedings.
- Unsupported Health Claims Rejected: Wife failed to produce medical evidence supporting her transfer request.
- Husband's Delay Concerns Considered: The Court noted that the wife sought transfer after participating in the divorce proceedings for years.
- Long-Pending Divorce Gets Priority: The High Court directed the trial court to complete proceedings within three months, protecting against further delays
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.