Mangli Nayak vs Rakesh (2026:Rj-Jd:16701)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5501 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5501 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mangli Nayak vs Rakesh (2026:Rj-Jd:16701) on 9 April, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:16701]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 86/2024

Mangli Nayak W/o Rakesh, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Ishwar Lal,
R/o Surendra Nagar Jalra Kuwa, Kuchamancity, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
Rakesh S/o Baldev Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 4
Near Government Hospital Post Fagalava, Tehsil Dhod, Dist.
Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     None present
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/04/2026

1. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer

for transfer of Case No.282/2023 (Rakesh Vs. Smt. Mangli Nayak)

under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act of 1955') pending before the Family Court,

Sikar.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-

wife is presently residing at Kuchaman and would be required to

travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Sikar.

It is submitted that there is no family member available to

accompany her and therefore, she would face serious hardship in

undertaking such travel on each date of hearing.

3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-wife is responsible

for the day-to-day care of the minor child. Thus, travelling alone

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16701] (2 of 4) [CTA-86/2024]

with the child to Sikar causes serious hardship to her and further,

criminal proceedings are also pending between the parties at

Kuchaman.

4. It has therefore been prayed that the case pending before

Family Court, Sikar be transferred to the Court of Additional

District Judge, Kuchaman, District Didwana.

5. Heard the Counsels. Perused the Record.

6. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial

matters generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be

looked at while considering the plea of transfer. In N.C.V.

Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, (2022 INSC

1310)(decided on 18.07.2022), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as

under:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally,it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

7. So far as the ground of the minor child being in the care and

custody of the petitioner-wife is concerned, the Courts have

consistently held that 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:

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16701] (3 of 4) [CTA-86/2024]

"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."

8. 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 under her care, would be at serious

hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to attend

the proceedings at Sikar. Accompanying the child with her on

each date or leaving the child in care of other family members,

both would not be in interest, welfare and mental health of the

child.

9. The present transfer application hence, deserves to be and

is hereby allowed. Case No.282/2023 (Rakesh Vs. Smt. Mangli

Nayak) pending before Family Court, Sikar is directed to be

transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Kuchaman