[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Poonam Yadav vs Prashant Rajput on 8 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:770
1 MCC-4726-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 4726 of 2025
SMT. POONAM YADAV
Versus
PRASHANT RAJPUT
Appearance:
Mr. Lalta Prasad Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
This application under Section 24 of CPC has been filed for transfer of
Case No. 538/2025 HMA pending before Additional Principal Judge to the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, to the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Morena.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent has filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Gwalior, whereas
applicant has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena. She has also filed an
application under Section 144 of BNSS before the Court of competent
Magistrate at Morena, and an application under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act has also been filed before the
competent Court at Morena. It is submitted that since application filed by
applicant under Section 144 of BNSS and application under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act were filed prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:770
2 MCC-4726-2025
institution of application filed by respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, therefore, it is clear that after receiving the information that
applicant has already approached the Court, respondent filed the application
with an intention to frustrate the efforts of applicant. It is further submitted
that applicant is resident of a village which is approximately 25 km away
from Morena, and from Morena she has to come down to Gwalior which is
further 35 km away from Morena. However, it is fairly conceded that in the
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, applicant has also prayed for an order of residence in her
shared household, which is in Gwalior.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.
4. Counsel for applicant is completely wrong in submitting that all the
three cases, or some of the cases out of the three cases instituted by
applicant, were prior in time to the institution of application filed by
respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. When the counsel for
applicant was directed to point out the dates of institution, then he fairly
conceded that all the three cases were instituted by applicant after the
institution of case by respondent. Thus, the submission, which was being
made by counsel for applicant that in fact application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act was filed by respondent by way of a counterblast, has
proved to be a boomerang.
5. It is true that convenience of the wife has to be taken note of, but
that by itself cannot be developed as a tool to frustrate the husband also.
Respondent is an employee working in a private institution, as is clear from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:770
3 MCC-4726-2025
the causetitle. Since applicant has also filed an application under Section 144
of BNSS and if respondent is forced to leave his job in order to attend
multiple cases at Morena, then it will also have a direct effect on the rights of
applicant because she is also seeking maintenance.
6. Be that whatever it may. Since application filed by respondent under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is prior in time, therefore, on the basis
of subsequent institution of multiple cases by applicant, this Court is not
inclined to transfer the case filed by respondent before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior.
7. Now, a very peculiar situation would arise, i.e., one application
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the competent
Court at Gwalior, and another application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act is pending before the competent Court at Morena. It is always
desirable that when two cases of a similar nature are instituted before two
different Courts, then they should be decided by a common judgment, or the
subsequent case can be stayed under Section 10 of CPC.
8. Accordingly, if applicant so desires, specifically when she herself is
claiming her right of shared household which is in Gwalior, then she may file
an application for transfer of her case from Morena to Gwalior.
9. With aforesaid liberty, the application for transfer is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
