BENGALURU: <\/em>The Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/strong>, in a Criminal Petition dated 10 February 2026, delivered an order by Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar<\/strong>. The husband had approached the Court seeking transfer of a maintenance case<\/strong> filed by his wife from the Principal Family Court at Chikkamagaluru to the Family Court at Bengaluru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The marriage between the parties took place on 28.03.2024 at Chikkamagaluru. After marriage, the wife lived with the husband in Bengaluru. Later, disputes arose between them, and the wife went back to her parental home in Chikkamagaluru. She then filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS<\/strong> seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband approached the High Court asking for the transfer of this maintenance case to Bengaluru. He argued that he is living in Bengaluru with his dependent, widowed mother<\/strong>. He said he cannot leave her alone and travel to Chikkamagaluru for every hearing. He also stated during arguments that he had met with an accident and suffered leg injuries<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court noted that no interim maintenance order had been passed by the Family Court and that no such request had been made at that stage. The High Court clearly observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is the convenience of the wife which is to be looked into whenever transfer of the cases is sought.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar further made it clear that the fact that the petitioner\u2019s mother is a widowed, aged lady is not a valid ground for transfer<\/strong>. The Court emphasized that the wife was not employed and had no independent income, and shifting the case to Bengaluru would cause hardship to her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the accident claim<\/strong>, the Court recorded that this ground was not even mentioned in the petition and therefore could not be considered<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the High Court held that no valid grounds were made out for transferring the maintenance case and dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case again highlights how courts consistently prioritize the wife\u2019s convenience in matrimonial litigation<\/strong>. While the husband\u2019s responsibilities and practical difficulties were placed before the Court, the legal principle applied was clear and settled: in transfer matters related to maintenance, the wife\u2019s convenience generally prevails<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 407, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)<\/strong><\/td> Empowers the High Court to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to secure ends of justice<\/td> Husband invoked this provision seeking transfer of the wife\u2019s maintenance case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru<\/td><\/tr> Section 447, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Successor provision corresponding to transfer powers under CrPC after procedural reform<\/td> Petition was also filed under this section as procedural law has transitioned from CrPC to BNSS<\/td><\/tr> Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita<\/a> (BNSS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Provides for maintenance claims by wife against husband for financial support<\/td> Wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.159\/2024 under this section claiming Rs.50,000 per month as maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (corresponding earlier provision)<\/strong><\/td> Earlier statutory provision governing maintenance proceedings prior to BNSS<\/td> Though not directly invoked in this petition, Section 144 BNSS corresponds to the earlier Section 125 CrPC framework governing maintenance jurisprudence<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
For Petitioner:<\/strong> Sri Manjunatha V<\/strong>., Advocate
For Respondent:<\/strong> Smt. Anusha Asundi<\/strong>, Advocate for Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao<\/strong>, Advocate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nKey Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n