Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raghuveer Singh vs Sonu Kanwar (2026:Rj-Jd:16723)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5508 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5508 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raghuveer Singh vs Sonu Kanwar (2026:Rj-Jd:16723) on 9 April, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16723]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 239/2025

Raghuveer Singh S/o Gayad Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Belwa Ranaji, Tehsil Balesar, dist. Jodhpur. At Present Residing At
C/o Karpal Singh House No 43 Shikshak Colony,gali No. 3,
Chopasani Jodhpur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Sonu Kanwar D/o Sang Singh, W/o Raghuveer Singh R/o Village
Laxmi Ji Ki Dhani Jethaniya,tehsil Lohawat Dist Phalodi
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Hinglaj Dan Charan
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Girdhar Singh Bhati



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/04/2026

1. The present transfer petition has been filed on behalf of the

petitioner-husband for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for Short 'the Act') as filed on

behalf of the respondent-wife at Family Court, Phalodi to Family

Court No.1, Jodhpur.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an army

personnel and at present posted at Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore,

attending the proceedings at Phalodi would cause comparatively

more hardship to the petitioner than the respondent who is a

resident of Village Jethaniya, District Phalodi.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the distance of Village

Jethaniya where the respondent is residing, is not more than 30

(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:46:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16723] (2 of 5) [CTA-239/2025]

kms. from Jodhpur and hence, it would not be much of an

inconvenience to the respondent.

4. Counsel further submits that the petition under Section 9 of

the Act has been filed by the respondent-wife just to harass the

petitioner as he had filed an application under Section 13 of the

Act. Further, she also lodged FIR against the petitioner wherein a

final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and as

of date, no criminal proceedings remain pending at Phalodi.

5. Per contra Counsel for the respondent submits that a protest

petition has been filed by the respondent against the FR as filed in

the criminal proceedings. The same remains pending as of date.

Further, the respondent not been paid any maintenance, it would

cause serious hardship to her to attend the proceedings at

Jodhpur on every date.

6. After hearing the counsels and perusing the record, this

Court is of the clear opinion that in the present matter, the

hardship would be more that of the petitioner-husband as he is an

Army personnel serving at Jammu & Kashmir. Evidently, he would

be attending the proceedings only after a leave being sanctioned

for the same. In that event, travelling to his residential place at

Balesar/Jodhpur and then to Phalodi to attend the proceedings

would definitely cause a serious hardship.

7. So far as the respondent not being paid any maintenance is

concerned, this Court is of the opinion that an appropriate

application for the same can be filed by her before the Court,

which can be appropriately considered and decided by the Court in

terms of law.

(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:46:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16723] (3 of 5) [CTA-239/2025]

8. As is the settled position of law, it is not only the hardship of

the wife which is to be considered while deciding the transfer

matter, in peculiar circumstances, the hardship of the husband

ought to be also considered. Orissa High Court in the case of

Anuva Choudhury vs. Biswajit Mishra, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori

3125 (decided on 05.09.2022) observed as under:

"9. While deciding an application for transfer of a matrimonial case, it has been the usual practice to consider the inconvenience which is likely to be faced by the wife while turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the difficulties faced by the husband, on account of the accepted position of law that convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration in matrimonial cases. This is because women were considered to belong to the weaker sex and dependent on a male for their survival and security, be it the father, brother, husband or son. But now, after 75 years of independence, the situation has changed and the emancipation of women is clearly visible. Women are being given equal opportunity and representation in all spheres. They have become self dependent and many are no longer dependent on their husband/parents/brothers or sons for their survival and security. They have become the sole breadwinners in some families. They are able to bring up a child on their own. Some are part of the law making and law enforcing agencies. They are able to travel alone in connection with their work and recreation. Unfortunately, there are still many exceptions, as many women are still dependent on their family members for their survival on account of lack of education, lack of support and as some men still have not learnt to respect women for which women are still victims of eve teasing and sexual harassment in educational institutions, public transport and even in their work place. Travelling alone for long distances by road or train for a woman is often fraught with risk. Likewise, due to a variety of reasons, the role and responsibilities of men have undergone a sea change. Many men have to single handedly take care of aged and ailing parents and young children, for which there are sometimes constraints on their time and movement. Their job requirements may also be a stumbling block. So in the present situation,

(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:46:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16723] (4 of 5) [CTA-239/2025]

an application for transfer of a matrimonial case has to be considered on its own facts without mechanically or blindly allowing the application of the wife. For the same reasons, the earlier decisions have also to be viewed in the same light. A balance has to be struck, so that each party is able to fight/defend his/her case in the trial court. Many Courts have been provided with video conferencing facilities, which can also be utilised by all the parties for their convenience."

9. Further, the Courts have considered occupation/profession of

the husband as a valid ground for transfer. Hon'ble the Apex Court

in the case of Smt. Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Dr.

Deviprakash Thakar; 1996 (11) SCC 96 dismissed the transfer

petition filed by the wife considering the fact that husband was a

medical practitioner.

10. Herein, this Court is of the clear opinion that the balance of

convenience lies in favour of the husband and it is he who would

suffer more hardship. The application therefore deserves to be and

is hereby allowed. Civil Misc. Case No.42/2025 (Smt. Sonu

Kanwar Vs. Raghuveer Singh) pending before the Family Court,

Phalodi is directed to be transferred to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur

for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

11. Family Court, Phalodi is directed to send the complete

file/record of Civil Misc. Case No.42/2025 (Smt. Sonu Kanwar Vs.

Raghuveer Singh) to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur 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

before the Court at Jodhpur.

12. The petitioner as well as the respondent shall remain present

before Family Court No.1, Jodhpur on the date as fixed and the

transferee Court shall not be under an obligation to issue fresh

(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:46:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16723] (5 of 5) [CTA-239/2025]

notices to any of the parties as the present order is being passed

in presence of Counsel for both the parties.

13. Needless to observe that if any application is filed by any of

the parties with a request to permit him/her 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 said party is essential on the said date.

14. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith

each to Family Court, Phalodi and Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

15. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 36-KashishS/-

(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:46:25 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter