[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari Kurku vs Balram Syani Saude on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67830
1 MCC-2522-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2522 of 2025
SMT. RAJESHWARI KURKU
Versus
BALRAM SYANI SAUDE
Appearance:
Shri Parimal Chaturvedi - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Ambuj Jain - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Applicant has filed this application under Section 24 of C.P.C. for
transfer of case filed by the non-applicant/respondent bearing RCS HM
No.106/2024 (Balram Syani Saude Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari Kurku) pending
before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, District Harda to Family
Court, District Sagar.
2. Counsel appearing for applicant submitted that the applicant and
respondent are husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on
01.12.2020 as per Hindu rituals and customs at Sagar. It is submitted that the
respondent/husband is in government job and working in Police Department
and posted at Harda and his family is the reputed family in the local area and
having a good influence over the police and local administration and they are
highly politically connected with them. It is further submitted that the
applicant's family had given the gifts as per their best of his ability and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67830
2 MCC-2522-2025
capacity, but after the marriage the respondent and his family were not
satisfied with the gifts and with the other items brought by the applicant in
her marriage. The husband and his family was always talking in a sarcastic
manner and always comparing the marriage with others marriage and always
made the allegation that they have wrongly wedlock with her otherwise they
are getting the huge amount as dowry. It is further submitted that applicant
has adjusted to all adverse circumstances and adjusted her with full
dedication, but her husband/respondent behaved with her very cruel and
harass manner and ultimately kicked her out of his house. Due to said
wedlock, the god has blessed them a daughter namely Janhavi, but
unfortunately, she is handicapped and suffers from autism. This is the reason
between the couple. The respondent is liable for handicap daughter and
torturing the applicant for the said reason.
3. It is further submitted by counsel for applicant that the applicant and
her family member made best efforts to convince the respondent and his
family that understand their situation, but they were repeating the same. The
applicant had also filed a case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide Case
No.1668/2022 for maintenance of her and her handicapped daughter at
District Sagar. It is further submitted that the respondent/husband filed the
suit for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act at Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Harda which is 400 Kms. far from Sagar. There is no
male member in the family. Applicant is a lady and there is no source of
income. Applicant being a lady of 28 years residing with her 3 years old
handicapped daughter and also with her old age mother at Village Raipura,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67830
3 MCC-2522-2025
P.S.-Surkhi, District Sagar. It is further submitted that applicant is not able to
attend the case at Harde due to aforesaid reasons. In these circumstances, it is
prayed that the case filed by the non-applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act bearing RCS HM No.106/2024 pending before Principal
Judge, Family Court, Harda be transferred to Family Court, District Judge.
Learned counsel for applicant also relied upon the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Majoo V. Sanjeev Majoo, reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 479.
4. Counsel appearing for respondent opposed the prayer made by
counsel for applicant and submits that respondent is a government employee
i.e. Constable in Police Department, therefore, if application is allowed, then
respondent may be given liberty to appearing before Family Court Sagar,
through his counsel or through video conferencing.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
taking into account the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Tejalben Vs. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari (2016) 3 SCC 69; Ruchi Rawat
Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah and another 2022 SCC Online SC
2036; Manjula Singh Chouhan Vs. Vishal Singh Chouhan (2019) 3 SCC 660
and also taking into account the convenience of the applicant, the case filed
by the non-applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing
RCS HM No.106/2024 (Balram Syani Soude Vs. Rajeshwari) be transferred
from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, District Harda to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67830
4 MCC-2522-2025
Family Court, District Sagar.
7. However, taking into consideration, the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in case of Kumar Apurv Vs. Nikita Sinha passed in Transfer
Petition (C) No.398/2022, the non-applicant/respondent would be at liberty
to appear through video conferencing and shall be granted exemption from
personal appearance by the Family Court, Sagar. The non-
applicant/respondent shall also be at liberty to produce witnesses and cross-
examine the witnesses of the applicant in the above-mentioned case through
virtual mode with full opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine such
witnesses.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Harda to place in the case bearing RCS HM
No.106/2024 and a copy of this order be also sent to the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, District Sagar.
9. With aforesaid directions, this MCC is allowed and disposed of.
10. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
sp/-
