[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Upasana Sanodiya (Patel) vs Shri Harish Sanodiya on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
1 MCC-4869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 4869 of 2025
SMT UPASANA SANODIYA (PATEL)
Versus
SHRI HARISH SANODIYA
Appearance:
Shri Anand Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brij Bhusan Pandey - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The applicant/wife has filed the present petition under Section 24 of
C.P.C. making a prayer for transfer of RCSHM No.0000132/2025 which is
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Seoni to the
Family Court Jabalpur, District Jabalpur.
2. The application for transfer of the case has been filed on the ground that
applicant's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2022.
Subsequently, matrimonial dispute has arisen between the parties, which has
led to filing of an FIR No.248/2024 by the applicant/wife at Police Station
Gorabazar, Jabalpur for the offences under Sections 498A, 294, 506, 34 IPC
and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said criminal
proceedings are pending as RCT No.4882/2024 before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur. The applicant has also filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C./Section 144 of BNSS for grant of maintenance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
2 MCC-4869-2025
registered as MJCR No.809/2024 before the Family Court, Jabalpur which is
pending adjudication. The respondent/husband has also filed an application
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Seoni registered as RCSHM
No.132/2025.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant-wife has submitted that the applicant
is residing at her parental home at Jabalpur with her widow and old aged
mother. She is a home maker and not having sufficient means to travel to
Seoni on every date of matrimonial proceedings and the distance between
Jabalpur and Seoni is approximately 150 Kms. It is submitted that the
applicant has to travel alone to attend the proceedings at Family Court, Seoni
which causes great hardship to her. It is further submitted that the applicant
being a lady is also entitled to contest her case at a place where the same is
convenient to her. It is further submitted that the respondent is regularly
attending the proceedings before the Family Court, Jabalpur and thus, it is
submitted that the case filed by the respondent-husband in the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, District Seoni be transferred to the Family
Court, Jabalpur.
4. The respondent counsel has denied the allegations and stated that Section
9 application has been filed by the respondent/husband for restitution of
conjugal rights and in order to demonstrate that he is willing to stay with the
applicant, it has to be proved at the place which is the matrimonial home of
the parties. Therefore, only the convenience of the applicant would not be a
relevant factor to transfer the matter from Seoni to Jabalpur. The other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
3 MCC-4869-2025
factors like presence of other witnesses, the incidences which took place at
Seoni which constitutes cruelty are required to be proved at that place. It is
further submitted that the respondent's father is suffering from serious health
problems for which documents have also been filed as Annexure-R/3. It is
further submitted that the respondent is ready to make the payment of
commutation of the applicant on the date fixed by the Court
below. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . It is evident from the record that the respondent has filed an application
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights
before the Family Court, Seoni which is pending adjudication. Since, the
subject matter which are pending at Jabalpur are related to the criminal
offence of demand of dowry and maintenance, therefore, the same cannot be
tried together with Section 9 application which is pending at Seoni. The
applicant has to prove her case by adducing evidence on its own merits. The
respondent has to prove his case of restitution of conjugal rights by adducing
evidence and submitting witnesses at the matrimonial place where the parties
resided together during the subsistence of their marriage. On the contrary,
the applicant can appear through counsel or video conferencing before the
Family Court, Seoni if she wishes. The applicant is not required to be present
before the Family Court, Seoni on each and every date of the proceedings.
The presence of the applicant is only required for evidence before the Family
Court for which her lodging, boarding and travel can be suitably
compensated by payment of money which can be monitored by the Family
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
4 MCC-4869-2025
Court, Seoni where the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act filed by the respondent/husband is pending.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
5 MCC-4869-2025
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
6 MCC-4869-2025
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)
1 0 . 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 :-
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
7 MCC-4869-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
8 MCC-4869-2025
applicant to file an application for exemption on certain
dates for sufficient 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)
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh
(2018) 1 SCC 1 has issued guidelines in respect of in-camera proceedings
which can be held in a private room or chamber of the Court, if the applicant
so desires.
14. From the above enunciation of law, it is clear that now only the
convenience is not the reasonable factor which can determine the case of
transfer. 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 compensated
by making payment of commutation. The respondent has undertaken that he
is ready to pay the expenses of travel and commutation to the applicant as
and when the applicant is required in the Court at Seoni as directed by the
Court.
15. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant may appear
before the Family Court, Seoni, District Seoni through video conferencing or
counsel, if so desire. The applicant shall attend the Court at Seoni for her
examination on the date fixed by the Court below for which the expenses
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22231
9 MCC-4869-2025
would be borne by the respondent. The Family Court, Seoni is directed to fix
the date for examination of the applicant and accordingly, direct the
respondent to make payment of the expenses. For further dates and
adjudication, the applicant is at liberty to appear before the Court through
video conferencing or counsel who is appearing at Seoni.
16. With the aforesaid, the M.C.C. is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
Priya.P
