[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preeti Verma vs Amit Ahlawat on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
1 MCC-1594-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1594 of 2025
PREETI VERMA
Versus
AMIT AHLAWAT
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena with Shri Ajay Chaturvedi - Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Akhil Godha - Advocate for the respondent through Video
Conferencing.
ORDER
This application has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking transfer of R.C.S.H.M. No.544/2025 filed by the
respondent and pending before the court of I Addl. Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bhopal to the Family Court Indore.
2. It is the case of the applicant that she got married to the respondent
on 9.2.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs and one son namely Daksh was
born out of the said wedlock, who is aged about 6 years. In September 2021
the respondent husband deserted the petitioner wife and the child and on
5.3.2022 all of a sudden petitioner came to meet the son and took him away
unlawfully from the custody of petitioner and refused to return him against
which the applicant wife has filed a Habeas Corpus petition bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
2 MCC-1594-2025
W.P.No.10547/2022 before Indore Bench and after mediation, the petition
was disposed of vide order dated 13-05-2022 observing that the parties have
reconciled the matter and as per mediation, both the parties have agreed to
live together along with the child. However, the respondent did not turn up.
Thereafter, the applicant wife filed an application under section 26 of Hindu
Marriage Act seeking custody of child along with the petition under section
9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The said petition was registered as RCS HM
No.684/2025. Thereafter, the applicant came to know that respondent had
filed application for divorce before the Family Court, Bhopal, against the
applicant, which is registered as RCS HM No.544/2025 when she received
copy of the notice of the said case. Hence, this petition is being filed seeking
transfer of said proceedings to Family court, Indore.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
residing at Indore and has to travel 200 kms. which takes around 4 hours,
which is causing enormous mental, physical and financial hardship and
suffering to the applicant. It is further submitted that two cases are already
pending before Family Court, Indore, in which respondent is appearing,
hence prayer is made to transfer R.C.S.H.M. No.544/2025 from Bhopal to
Indore in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid
submissions and submitted that even after passing of the order of
conciliation, the applicant wife never came to matrimonial house, therefore,
the divorce petition was filed by the respondent on 12/04/2025 and in
the divorce petition the notices were issued to the petitioner which was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
3 MCC-1594-2025
served upon her on 26/04/2025. It is further submitted that the application
under section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking custody of child itself is not
maintainable before the Family Court Indore, therefore, also the present case
cannot be transferred to the Indore on the ground of jurisdiction as per
section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act. It is submitted that the paramount
consideration is always the welfare of the child and the child is residing with
the respondent. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das
(2006) 9 SCC 197 has held in paragraphs 3 to 7 as under :-
"3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was
showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a
large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking
advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at
least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each
admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is
being misused by the women.
4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its
merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a
small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in
this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to
look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses
for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every
visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi.
Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is
adequately met.
5. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are
given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to
attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for
exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on
its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out.
6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We, however,
direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of
the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion
when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.
7. The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, money
for a 2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. The
respondent shall also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and her
companion in a 3-star hotel. The trial court shall ensure that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
4 MCC-1594-2025
petitioner has been paid the travel expenses in advance and that
the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasion
when she is required to attend the court at Delhi."
7 . Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Sharma vs.
Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535 has held in para-2 as under :-
"2. Merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she
cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar. At the highest she can be paid
expenses for travel and stay. We, therefore, direct that the
respondent shall pay to the petitioner and a companion travel and
stay expenses on every occasion that the petitioner is required to
go to Muzaffar Nagar. The Court at Muzaffar Nagar shall ensure
that such payment is made to the petitioner on every occasion.
With these directions, the transfer petitions are dismissed."
8. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina Vishwakarma
Vs. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, 2023 SCC Online MP 1148 (para 12), has
held as under :-
"14. A perusal of the aforesaid reflect that in the present case, the
petitioner has failed to make out a case of inconvenience or
hardship inasmuch as, recently the petitioner herself is appearing
in the Court at Anuppur in the other cases and recently on
11.04.2023, the petitioner has appeared in a case which is
registered against the respondent under Section 498A of I.P.C. The
counsel for respondent in the present case has also expressed that
he is willing to bear the expenses which are required for
appearance of the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 13
of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/husband.
15. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not
inclined to transfer the case No. RCS HM No. 40/19 from the
Court of First Additional District Judge, Kotma, Anuppur District
to District Jabalpur and accordingly, the present petition stands
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malti Shakyawar Vs.
Mukesh Shakyawar, 2019 SCC Online MP 1433, (para 10), has held as
under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
5 MCC-1594-2025
"10. In the present case, the respondent has filed the application
under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the
ground of cruelty. He is required to prove his case by way of
evidence. If the proceedings are transferred from Biaora Rajgarh
to Berasiya then, he will have to bring all his witnesses to the
Berasiya, therefore, entire proceeding on the basis of apprehension
of the petitioner that she may face problem in future while
attending the proceedings at Biaora cannot be transferred.
11. Parties are not required to attend each and every date of the
proceedings his/her lawyer can attain the proceedings. The
presence of parties are required in matrimonial cases only at the
stage of conciliation and the evidence. The rest of the proceedings
can be attended by their counsel. Hence, at this stage, I do not find
any special reason for transfer of the RCS No. 57/2018, from
Biaora Rajgarh to Berasiya at Bhopal."
10. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sujata Vs. Abhishek
Kulhare, 2019 SCC Online MP 6795 (para 7 & 8), has held as under :-
"8. The said judgment has been relied by this Court in the case
of Sangeeta Bhojak v. Rajkumar Bhojak reported in (2017) 3 MP
LJ 565, wherein it has been held that the convenience and the
distance alone is not the criteria for showing leniency in favour of
the applicant wife.
9. In the present case also except for showing inconvenience of
travelling alone from Damoh to Jabalpur, the applicant wife has
not shown any other inconvenience.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case for transfer of
the matrimonial proceedings from Family Court, Jabalpur to
Damoh. Accordingly, the MCC is dismissed."
(emphasis supplied).
11. Similarly, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pooja
Sharma Vs. Rakesh, 2019 SCC Online MP 5182 has held as under :-
"8. This Court in the matters of Smt. Pratibha Mishra v. Mukesh
Mishra, vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in MCC No.
510/2009, Anamika Pandey v. Shrihar Pandey vide order dated
27.08.2015 passed in MCC No. 1449/2014, Deepa
Kuttapan v. Anil Rajan vide order dated 12.01.2007 passed in
MCC No. 1536/2006 and Smt. Aditi Chouhan v. Deepak
Chouhan vide order dated 14.03.2016 passed in MCC No. 83/2016
has dismissed the similar transfer applications.
9. This Court in the matter of Deepa Kuttapan v. Anil
Rajan reported in 2007 (2) MPLJ 377 which permits the applicant
to file an application for exemption on certain dates for sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
6 MCC-1594-2025
cause for non appearance. Needless to say that the applicant is not
required to appear before the Family Court on each and every date
and is required to appear only on the concerned dates when the
personal presence is required. Counsel for the respondent has
already stated before this Court that the respondent will be paying
the travelling as well as the lodging and boarding expenses for the
applicant and one accompanying person as and when she is
required to travel from Ratlam to Indore.
(emphasis supplied)
12. From the above enunciation of law, it is clear that
now convenience of wife/lady is not the paramount consideration for
deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings
have been provided, viz. through Video Conferencing. If the matter is to be
proved by the witnesses of the place where the matter is being prosecuted
then the other side can suitably be adjusted by making payment of commute.
13. Further, from perusal of record, it is evident that the applicant had
filed another Habeas Corpus petition bearing W.P.No.32616/2025 before the
Indore Bench which was decided vide order dated 9.9.2025 wherein in para 8
of the order Division Bench of this court has passed visitation order and
permitted the petitioner therein to meet her son on any school holidays at
Bhopal and to interact with her child through video calls. Thus, when the
applicant can visit Bhopal to meet her child, then she can also attend the
court proceedings at Family Court Bhopal.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that this is not a fit case to interfere only on the ground of convenience of the
applicant. However, the applicant is permitted to appear in the court
proceedings through Video Conferencing or counsel, if she desires, unless
otherwise directed by the court. The respondent is directed to pay the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9763
7 MCC-1594-2025
expenses of travel to the applicant as and when the applicant is required in
the Court at Bhopal, as directed by the Court. However, the court below is
directed to ascertain and order payment of expenses which are required to be
paid by the respondent to the applicant for securing her presence on the
scheduled date of hearing.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
