Single-judge bench holds that husband’s responsibilities, including care of elderly mother, not sufficient ground to shift maintenance proceedings, convenience of spouse in maintenance matters takes precedence.
Bengaluru, India: A single-judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, on 18 February 2026 dismissed a husband’s plea seeking transfer of a maintenance case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru. The court emphasised that a husband’s personal commitments, including care of a widowed mother, cannot outweigh the spouse’s convenience in maintenance proceedings, especially where no interim relief has been granted.
Case Title & Proceedings
The matter, titled Sri Sridutta S. v. Smt. Poojitha O., involved a maintenance application filed by the wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru. The husband challenged this by seeking to transfer the case to Bengaluru, where he resides and where his widowed mother lives and depends on him for care.
Factual Background
The couple was married on 28 March 2024 at Chikkamagaluru. After cohabiting in Bengaluru, disputes arose and the wife returned to her parents’ home in Chikkamagaluru. She filed a petition for maintenance of ₹50,000 per month before the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru. The husband countered in the High Court that he could not attend regular hearings due to his residence in Bengaluru and caretaking responsibilities for his aged mother, who is widowed. He also cited personal injury from an accident affecting his mobility.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether mere inconvenience and familial obligations of the husband, including duties to support his widowed mother and his own health issues, constitute sufficient grounds for transferring the maintenance proceedings to his place of residence.
High Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that when deciding transfer applications in maintenance matters, the primary consideration must be the convenience of the spouse seeking maintenance, in this case the wife, who has no avocation and earns no income. The bench rejected the husband’s submission, noting:
- The wife’s convenience is paramount, particularly since no interim maintenance order had been issued and she would have to bear the travel burden if the case were shifted to Bengaluru.
- The husband’s care for his widowed mother and personal injury were not articulated effectively as formal grounds in the transfer petition.
- Granting the transfer solely on the basis of familial duties and convenience of the petitioner would cause disproportionate hardship to the respondent.
Justice Amarannavar held that a spouse seeking to shift venue must present clear and compelling reasons beyond general inconvenience or personal commitments. If a transfer disproportionately disadvantages the spouse claiming maintenance, it cannot be granted merely on the grounds of the petitioner’s circumstances.
Final Ruling
The High Court dismissed the husband’s plea for transferring the maintenance petition, concluding that his grounds did not justify shifting the proceedings. The Family Court in Chikkamagaluru will continue to hear the wife’s maintenance petition as originally filed.
Practical Implications
- Maintenance litigation focus: This ruling reiterates that in maintenance disputes, the court will primarily assess the convenience and accessibility of hearings for the maintenance-seeking spouse rather than the domicile or personal commitments of the respondent.
- Transfer jurisprudence: The judgment clarifies that personal or familial obligations, such as caring for elderly dependents, while relevant in broader contexts, may not suffice as standalone grounds to transfer maintenance proceedings.
- BNSS/CrPC context: Under the BNSS framework (replacing earlier provisions like Section 125 of the CrPC), the court continues to balance equitable access to justice for spouses with limited means against procedural issues like venue change.
- Litigation strategy: Parties seeking transfers in maintenance cases must present specific legal grounds supported by evidence, rather than general assertions of inconvenience.
The judgment adds clarity on, the standards courts may apply in deciding transfer petitions in maintenance cases, particularly the prioritisation of the maintenance-seeker’s convenience and the limited relevance of a spouse’s domestic obligations to venue change applications.
