Smt. Manisha vs Himanshu
2025 Latest Caselaw 11038 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Manisha vs Himanshu on 25 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:173488
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 676 of 2023   
 
   Smt. Manisha    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Himanshu    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Jagdish Prasad Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Nandini Mishra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 37
 
   
 
 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.      

1. Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Nandini Mishra, 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 13 (1) (A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed on behalf of the opposite party/husband is pending in the Family Court, Ghaziabad.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Smt. Manisha) under Section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court District-Nuzaffarnagar.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 22.08.2023 and stayed the further proceeding of the divorce Case. The order dated 22.08.2023 is quoted as under:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Smt.Manisha), under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that three proceedings; one under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., second in Case Crime No.343 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and third under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act have been instituted by the applicant against the opposite party at Muzaffarnagar whereas opposite party has instituted the divorce petition at District, Ghaziabad. It is submitted that applicant is residing with her aged parents at Muzaffarnagar and distance between Muzaffar Nagar to Ghaziabad is about 120 kilometers and applicant has no source of income to meet the litigation expenses and other expenses which is to be incurred in traveling from Muzaffarnagar to Ghaziabad to contest the case instituted by opposite party at Ghaziabad on each and every date fixed in the matter. It is further submitted that no amount towards maintenance is being paid to the applicant by the opposite party. Thus, the submission is that if the case is allowed to be proceeded at Ghaziabad, applicant would suffer serious prejudice.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice to respondent/opposite party returnable at an early date.

6. Steps by both modes i.e. ordinary post as well as R.P./A.D. be taken for service of notice upon respondent/opposite party within ten days.

7. Opposite party is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

8. List on 17.10.2023.

9. In case steps are not taken within the aforesaid period, the matter shall be listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules immediately after expiry of ten days.

10. Until further orders of this Court, further proceeding of Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Smt. Manisha), under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad shall remain stayed."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that proceeding of Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshur Vs. Smt. Manisha) filed under Section 13 (I) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the opposite party-husband should be transferred from the Family Court Ghaziabad to the competent court at Muzaffarnagar. He further placed reliance upon paragraph Nos. 10 to 19 of the affidavit filed in support of instant transfer application. He further submitted that cases are pending between the parties at Muzaffarnagar.

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

7. Ms Nandini Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party/husband submitted that opposite party/ husband at present 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 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initiated by opposite party/ husband is pending at family Court, Ghaziabad.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of paragraph Nos.10 to 19 of the affidavit filed in support of instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under:

"10- That it is relevant to mention here that earlier the opposite party and his family members badly beaten to the applicant due to not fulfill of dowry and also ousted the applicant from his house on 06.11.2022 and also strangulated the neck of the applicant and after receiving the injuries, applicant medically examined and also lodged the first information report against the opposite party and his family members as case crime no.343 of 2022, under section 323, 354, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar on 21.11.2022, in which after the investigation Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the opposite party and his family members on 06.05.2023 and the trial is going on against them in the Court of Musaffarnagar.

11- That prior moving the aforesaid divorce petition, the applicant also filed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as case no.410/11 2012 (Smt. Manish versus Himanshu) on 23.03.2023 and the case is pending in the Court of Family Court, Muzaffarnagar.

12- That applicant also filed the case against the opposite party and his family members under section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar on 27.07.2023, which is pending before the Civil Judge (J.D./F.T.C. Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar..

13- That the applicant also living in the village Morna, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar, which is a far away about 120 km and there are three cases initiated by the applicant against the opposite party and his family members is pending in District Court, Muzaffarnagar.

14- That at present time applicant is living in the village at District Muzaffarnagar in her malka and no any source of income and fully depend upon her parents but the opposite party false and frivolous allegation made and falsely filed present divorce petition only for harassing and nothing else.

15- That present time applicant is living in District-Muzaffarnagar and the opposite party filed the above divorce petition against the applicant at Ghaziabad which a far away about 120 kilometers from the District-Muzaffarnagar, therefore, it is not possible to the applicant to do pairvy in the District Ghaziabad and appear each and every date.

16- That the opposite party also given the threatening, if the applicant do pairvy in the District Ghaziabad, the opposite party and her associates can be murdered by the some miscreants in the way. Therefore, the applicant wants to transfer the divorce petition from the District Ghaziabad to District-Muzaffarnagar.

17- That it is most important to mention here that the opposite party also given the threatening to the applicant and due to threatening the applicant is not in position to pairvy the case in the District Ghaziabad.

18- That the applicant is a young lady and the Family Court, Ghaziabad is away about 120 Km. to the District-Muzaffarnagar and no any male members is available to go with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not in position to pairvy the case in District Ghaziabad.

19. That the opposite party always threatening to the applicant to pairvy the case in District-Ghaziabad, therefore, the life of theapplicant is in very dangerous to pairvi in district Ghaziabad, therefore, it is necessary to transfer the case under section 13(1)A of Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Family Court, Ghaziabad to the Family Court, Muzaffarnagar."

11. After perusal of the paragraphs Nos. 10 to 19 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 of the case from Ghaziabad to Muzaffarnagar 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.Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Smt. Manisha) under Section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad is transferred to Family Court District-Muzaffarnagar. The Family Court, Ghaziabad is directed to transmit the record of the case to family Court Muzaffarnagar forthwith. The family Court Muzaffarnagar is directed to decide the aforementioned Case No.Case No.761 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Smt. Manisha) under Section 13 (1) (A) 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.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

September 25, 2025

PS*/Vandana