Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21736) on 6 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:21736]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crl.misc.trnfr.pet. No. 30/2024
Naveen Kumar S/o Ram Nath, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward
No. 31, Om Colony, Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mamta W/o Naveen Kumar, R/o Village Narwasi, Teh.
Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kirti Parik
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Hardik Gautam
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/05/2025
The present transfer petition under Section 447 of BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner-husband with the prayer that cases
bearing Cr. Misc. Case Nos.585/2023 & 586/2023 titled as "Mamta
Vs. Naveen Kumar" pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
(Rural), Rajgarh, District Churu may be transferred to any other
court of District Churu.
Counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that while
attending the aforementioned cases in Rajgarh, the petitioner-
husband was subjected to an assault by the respondent No.2-wife
and her family members. In this regard, the petitioner-husband
filed a complaint before the Police Station Rajgarh on 01.09.2023.
Therefore, it is not safe for the petitioner-husband to visit Rajgarh.
Further, a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the
petitioner is already pending at Churu. Hence, it is prayed that the
[2025:RJ-JD:21736] (2 of 3) [CRLTP-30/2024]
aforesaid cases may be transferred from the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate (Rural), Rajgarh, District Churu to any other
court of District Churu.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-wife has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner-
husband and submitted that both the cases are pending at
Rajgarh since 2023, where smooth trial is going on. The complaint
filed by the petitioner-husband is false and frivolous and in a
matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife should be looked
into.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Considering the allegations of assault constitute a grave and
serious matter, properly addressed through the criminal justice
system, as evidenced by the filing of a police complaint and this is
an appropriate legal avenue for alleged criminal act. It is crucial to
recognize that the trajectory and outcome of the criminal
investigation and any subsequent prosecution are entirely
independent of the civil / matrimonial legal proceedings currently
before the court. The existence of criminal proceedings does not,
therefore, furnish a fundamental or compelling rationale for the
transfer of the pending cases from Rajgarh. Furthermore, a
paramount consideration in matrimonial proceedings, convenience
of the wife has to be considered, as affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Vinisha Jitesh Tolani
@ Manmeet Laghmani Vs. Jitesh Kishore Tolani reported in 2010
(1) WLC (SC) 705. Given that the respondent-wife resides at
Rajgarh, maintaining the cases in that jurisdiction aligns with this
[2025:RJ-JD:21736] (3 of 3) [CRLTP-30/2024]
well-established legal principle, ensuring her ease of access to
legal representation, court proceedings, and evidence
presentation, thereby promoting the accessibility of justice.
In view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, this Court is not
inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner-husband.
Hence, the transfer petition is hereby dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
51-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
