[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav vs Sarita Yadav (2026:Rj-Jd:16895) on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16895]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 240/2024
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav S/o Ramdayal Jatav, Aged About 40
Years, R/o House 75 Block H Goverdhan Vilas Sector 14 Girva
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sarita Yadav W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 75
House 75 Block H Hiran Magri Gordhan Vilas Sector 14 Girva
Udaipur. Presently R/o Near Bohra Ganesh Ji Temple, Sharda
Nagar, Opp. Chirag Aquarium, Udaipur And Presently Working As
Senior Assistant, Secrecy Section (UAO), Mohanlal Sukhadia
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan (313001)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Charan
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
10/04/2026
1. The present transfer application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner - husband with the prayer for transferring Case No.
494/2023 (Smt. Sarita Yadav Vs. Rajesh Jatav) under Sections 7,
9, 10 and 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 1890') pending before Family Court No.1,
Bhilwara to Family Court, Udaipur.
2. It has been submitted in the application that the respondent
- wife who is working as Senior Assistant at Mohanlal Sukhadia
University, Udaipur is residing at Udaipur with her minor child. The
minor child is also studying at Udaipur. The parental house of the
respondent is at Chittorgarh. Despite the same, the application
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:24:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16895] (2 of 5) [CTA-240/2024]
under the provisions of Act of 1890 has been filed at Bhilwara
without any plausible reason.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise, in
terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1890, an application under the
said provision has to be filed before the Court where the child
'ordinarily resides'. Herein, it is an admitted fact that the child is
studying at Udaipur and is living with her mother, who is employed
at Udaipur itself. Therefore, the application filed at Bhilwara,
deserves to be transferred to Udaipur.
4. In support of his submission, Counsel relied upon the co-
ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Soniya Soni Vs. Karan
Soni & Anr.; S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.161/2022
(decided on 11.11.2022).
5. Per contra Counsel for the respondent submitted that an
application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was filed by the
petitioner on the same grounds, before the Family Court at
Bhilwara. Vide order dated 27.09.2022, the said application stood
rejected and the learned Court specifically observed that it is not
the 'place of employment' which would decide the jurisdiction of a
Court. The Court further observed that as the applicant wife
resided at Bhilwara with her elder sister and mother, the same
would be termed to be her place of residence. Counsel submits
that once it has been decided by the Court that the application
was within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhilwara, it cannot now
be transferred to Udaipur.
6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
7. The facts which are admitted on record are: both the
petitioner and respondent are employed and posted at Udaipur;
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:24:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16895] (3 of 5) [CTA-240/2024]
they having a minor child and the child studying at Udaipur, is also
not disputed.
8. In view of the above admitted facts, it is crystal clear that
the respondent-wife, alongwith her minor child, is residing at
Udaipur. Even if the Court ignores and overlooks the convenience/
hardship of the petitioner husband or the respondent wife, it is
crystal clear that it is the minor child, who would be the actual
sufferer, if the proceedings under the Act of 1890 are permitted to
be continued at Bhilwara.
9. As is evident from order dated 27.09.2022 placed on record
by Counsel for the respondent today, the mother of the
respondent wife is residing at Bhilwara. Meaning thereby, there is
no one to take care of the minor child at Udaipur except the
mother herself. In that event, the child studying in a school at
Udaipur would definitely be required to accompany his mother to
Bhilwara on every date of hearing. That is to say on every date
when the respondent would travel to Bhilwara, she would either
have to accompany the child with her or to leave him in the care
of some stranger. The same definitely would be detrimental to the
studies, health and welfare of the minor child.
10. Further, in view of Section 9 of the Act of 1890, the present
application ought to have been preferred at Udaipur only, as the
child not only studies but is residing with his mother at Udaipur.
11. So far as order dated 27.09.2022 passed by Family Court,
Bhilwara is concerned, the same cannot be termed to be an
impediment for this Court in exercising its powers under Section
24, CPC. Section 24, CPC empowers this Court to transfer any
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:24:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16895] (4 of 5) [CTA-240/2024]
proceeding from one Subordinate Court to another, even of its
own motion.
12. This Court is of the clear opinion that herein, it is the child
who would be the actual sufferer and would face serious hardships
if the proceedings continue at Bhilwara. In overall facts and
circumstances and in view of Section 9 of the Act of 1890, the
present transfer application deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. Case No.494/2023 (Smt. Sarita Yadav Vs. Rajesh Jatav)
pending before Family Court No.1, Bhilwara is directed to be
transferred to Family Court, Udaipur for trial and
disposal in accordance with law.
13. Family Court No.1, Bhilwara is directed to send the
complete file/record of Case No.494/2023 to Family Court,
Udaipur 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.
14. The petitioner as well as the respondent shall remain present
before Family Court, Udaipur on the date as fixed and
the transferee Court shall not be under an obligation to issue fresh
notices to any of the parties as the present order is being passed
in presence of Counsel for both the parties.
15. 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.
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:24:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16895] (5 of 5) [CTA-240/2024]
16. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court No.1, Bhilwara and Family Court, Udaipur.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
200-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:24:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
