Anupama Raje vs Sunita Tomar on 27 January, 2026

1 MCC-1060-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1056 of 2025
ANUPAMA RAJE
Versus
MAHIPAL SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1059 of 2025
ANUPAMA RAJE
Versus
MAHIPAL SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Abhilash Kumar Dey - Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1060 of 2025
ANUPAMA RAJE AND OTHERS
Versus
SUNITA TOMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 1/29/2026
7:01:50 PM
2 MCC-1060-2025
ORDER

As similar questions of law and facts are involved in M.C.C.No.1056/2025, M.C.C.No.1059/2025 and M.C.C.No.1060/2025, they are being decided by this common order.

2. These applications have been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 filed by the respondents and pending before the court of VII Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhopal, and XIX Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhopal, respectively to District Court Nowgaon, Chhattarpur.

3. It is the case of the applicant that she got married to Mahim Pratap

Singh Tomar, s/o the respondent on 7.2.2017 and one son Adhiraj was born out of the said wedlock on 10.11.2018. The applicant's husband passed away on 17.8.2024. After the demise, the respondents started harassing the applicant mentally and torturing her due to which she started living separately at her parental house at Nowgaon along with her minor son. The respondents filed Civil Suit M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 against the applicant seeking succession certificate of the estate of the applicant's husband, provident fund and gratuity amount and LIC amount, which are pending before civil court Bhopal.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is residing at Chhattarpur and has to travel 331 kms. which takes around 8 hours, which is causing enormous mental, physical and financial hardship

3 MCC-1060-2025 and suffering to the applicant. It is further submitted that two cases are already pending before District Court, Nowgaon, in which respondents are appearing, hence prayer is made to transfer M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 from Bhopal to Nowgaon.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. 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

4 MCC-1060-2025 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."

8 . 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."

9. 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)

10. 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 :-

5 MCC-1060-2025 "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."

11. 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).

12. 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 cause for non appearance. Needless to say that the applicant is not

6 MCC-1060-2025 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)

13. From the above enunciation of law, it is clear that n o w 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.

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 unless otherwise directed by the court. The respondents are directed to pay the 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 respondents to the applicant for securing her presence on the scheduled date of hearing.

15. With the aforesaid, these petitions stand dismissed.

(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE

7 MCC-1060-2025