[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sonu Kumari vs Ganesh Nath (2026:Rj-Jd:16708) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16708]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 214/2025
Sonu Kumari W/o Shri Ganesh Nath, Aged About 31 Years,
Daughter Of Om Prakash Resident Of Punrasar Tehsil Sri
Dungargarh District Bikaner At Present 31 Kyd Tehsil Khajuwalal
District Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
Ganesh Nath S/o Shri Nem Nath, Resident Of Punrasar Tehsil Sri
Dungargarh At Present Opp Sofia School Tilak Nagar Bikaner
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Saran for
Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/04/2026
1. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.
2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer
for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.471/2023 (Ganesh Nath Vs.
Sonu Kumari) under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') pending before Family
Court No.1, Bikaner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-wife is presently residing at Khajuwala and would be
required to travel a considerable distance to attend the
proceedings at Bikaner. It is submitted that the said area is
situated near the Indo-Pak border and lacks adequate public
transportation facilities, thereby making regular travel difficult.
Further, petitioner's father is old and suffering from age-related
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:49:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:39:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16708] (2 of 4) [CTA-214/2025]
ailments and there is no one in the family available to accompany
the petitioner on each date of hearing.
4. Counsel further submits the petitioner-wife is responsible for
the day-to-day care of a minor child of five years. Therefore,
travelling alone with the child to Bikaner will cause serious
hardship to her.
5. It is also averred that several proceedings are pending between
the parties at Khajuwala. It has therefore been prayed that the
pending application at Bikaner be transferred to the Court of
Additional District Judge, Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
6. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.
7. It is well settled that in case of a minor child being in the care
and custody of the petitioner-wife, the inconvenience is more on
the part of the woman. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 held as under:
"2. The wife has a child, approximately three years
old, with her in Bombay. She avers that she has no
source of income and no one to travel with her from
Bombay to Delhi. In the circumstances, she is unable
to satisfactorily defend the divorce petition. It is
contended on behalf of the husband that the transfer
petition should be dismissed, and that he will pay for
the wife's transport between Bombay and Delhi along
with an escort, whenever required, as also pay for the
travel of her witnesses in the matrimonial
proceedings.
3. This misses two points. The first relevant
circumstance is that there is a very small child with
the wife in Bombay and the second is that the wife
does not have anybody who can conveniently
accompany her to Delhi. Apart from this, as is shown
by the counter, there are already proceedings in
Bombay which the husband has to defend. We think,
in the circumstances, that the transfer petition should
be allowed."
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:49:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:39:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16708] (3 of 4) [CTA-214/2025]
8. So far as the plea of long-distance travel and no one in the
family to accompany to the Court on each date of hearing and the
resultant inconvenience to the petitioner-wife is concerned,
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap
vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; 2016 INSC 504 held as
under:
3. According to the Appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult
for her mother to accompany the Appellant for her travel to
Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases-one
for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 and the third Under Section 498A of The
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, pending at
Barshi, and one on the civil side for restitution.
...
5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around
400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at
Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the
appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High
Court has missed to take note of.
6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and
the M. J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the 2 Page 3
respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand
transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi."
9. In view of the submissions made and in view of the settled
position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner
having a minor child of five years under her care, would be at
serious hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to
attend the proceedings at Bikaner, especially when there is no one
in the family to accompany her. Further, accompanying the child
with her on each date or leaving the child in care of other family
members, both would not be in the interest, welfare and mental
health of the child.
10. The present transfer application hence, deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. Civil Misc. Case No.471/2023 (Ganesh Nath Vs.
Sonu Kumari) pending before Family Court No.1, Bikaner is
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:49:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16708] (4 of 4) [CTA-214/2025]
directed to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge,
Khajuwala for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
11. Family Court No.1, Bikaner is directed to send the complete
file/record of Civil Misc. Case No.471/2023 (Ganesh Nath Vs. Sonu
Kumari) to the Court of Additional District Judge, Khajuwala,
District Bikaner within a period of two weeks from the receipt of
the certified copy of the present order while fixing the next date in
the matter for appearance of both the parties before the
transferee Court. Both the parties shall remain present before the
transferee Court on the next date as fixed.
12. Needless to observe that if any application is filed by the
respondent-husband with a request to permit him to appear
through Video Conferencing, the learned Court shall be at liberty
to decide the same keeping into consideration the fact whether
the physical appearance of the respondent is essential on the said
date.
13. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court No.1, Bikaner and Court of Additional District
Judge, Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
35-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:49:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
