Shreya Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaisawal
2025 Latest Caselaw 6923 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shreya Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaisawal on 22 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144651
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 229 of 2024
 
Court No. - 37
 
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party/husband.

2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. A petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed on behalf of the opposite party/husband is pending in the Family Court, Sonbhadra.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the Civil Suit No.36 of 2024 (Rajesh Jaisawal Vs. Shreya Jaisawal) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra to Family Court District-Varanasi.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 01.04.2024 and stayed the further proceeding of the Case. The order dated 01.04.2024 is quoted as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

This transfer application has been filed by the applicant to transfer the Original Suit No. 36 of 2024 (Rajesh Jaisawal vs. Shreya Jaisawal), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra to the court of competent jurisdiction in District Varanasi.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The applicant wife is presently residing in district Varansi. The applicant has already filed petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi on 07.03.2024 for declaring her marriage with opposite party as null and void. The aforesaid case for Restitution of Conjugal Rights has been filed by opposite party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act only to harass the applicant in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra. District Varanasi is much away from district Sonbhadra. The applicant being lady is facing great hardship in attending the court proceeding in district Sonbhadra.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party.

Steps be taken within one week by registered post.

List after two months.

Until further orders of this Court further proceeding of Original Suit No. 36 of 2024 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra shall remain stayed."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that proceeding of Case No.36 of 2024 (Rajesh Jaisawal Vs. Shreya Jaisawal) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initiated by the opposite party-husband should be transferred from the Family Court Sonbhadra to the competent court at Varanasi. He further placed reliance upon paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application.

6. Stay Vacation application along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party/husband has already been filed.

7. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by applicant-wife.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initiated by opposite party/ husband is pending at family Court, Sonbhadra.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, ,11, 12, 15 and 16 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application will be relevant which are as under:

"8. That thereafter applicant filed an application under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 before Principal Judge Family court Varnasi on 07.03.2024 for declaration of null and void of the aforesaid illegal marriage which is still pending. A copy of the application under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act dated 07.03.2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

9. That the opposite party filed a original suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing no. 36 of 2024 before Principal Judge Family Court Sonbhadra on 25.01.2024. A copy of the original suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dated 25.01.2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

10. That the learned Principal Judge Family court Sonbhadra issued notice/summon on 25.01.2024 to the applicant and fixed the ate on 27.02.2024 for her objection. A copy of the order dated 27.02.2024 18 being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

11. That the opposite party threatened to the applicant, if she appeared before the court of learned Principal Judge Family Court Sonbhadra for proceeding under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act then the opposite party will kill her.

12. That the applicant is very scared after threatening of the opposite party and if she appeared in the court of Principal Judge Family Court Sonbhadra then opposite party could be committed illegal act with the applicant.

15. That the distance from Varanasi to Sonbhadra near about 180 Km.

16. That the act of the opposite party is not justified at all and defeats the ends of justice."

11. After perusal of the paragraphs Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application as quoted above this Court has found that the prayer of the applicant/wife for transfer the case from Sonbhadra to Varanasi is genuine coupled with the fact that opposite party/husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by applicant/wife.

12. Apex Court in the Case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356 (Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap) has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Apex Court Judgment rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (Supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under:-

"1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred.

3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult for her mother to accompany the appellant for her travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the civil side for restitution.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant's mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent-husband.

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Case No.36 of 2024 (Rajesh Jaisawal Vs. Shreya Jaisawal) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 pending in the court of Principal Judge Family Court, Sonbhadra is transferred to Family Court District-Varanasi. The Family Court, Sonbhadra is directed to transmit the record of the case to family Court Varanasi forthwith. The family Court Varanasi is directed to decide the aforementioned proceeding of theCase No.36 of 2024 (Rajesh Jaisawal Vs. Shreya Jaisawal) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

August 22, 2025

PS*/Vandana