[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav vs Sarita Yadav (2026:Rj-Jd:16896) on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16896]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 295/2024
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav S/o Ramdayal Jatav, Aged About 40
Years, R/o House 75 Block H Govardhan Vilas Sector 14 Girva
Udaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Sarita Yadav W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Presently
Residing At House No 29 Sharda Nagar Opp. Chirag Aquarium
Near Bohra Ganesh Ji Temple Udaipur and Presently Working As
Senior Assistant Secrecy Section UAO) Mohanlal Sukhadia
University Udaipur Rajasthan 303001
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 304/2024
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav S/o Ramdayal Jatav, Aged About 40
Years, R/o House 75 Block H Govardhan Vilas Sector 14 Girva
Udaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Sarita Yadav W/o Rajesh Kumar, R/o House No 29 Sharda Nagar
Opp Chirag Aquarium Near Bohra Ganesh Ji Temple, Udaipur And
Presently Working As Senior Assistant Secrecy Section (Uao)
Mohanlal Sukhadia University Udaipur Rajasthan 313001
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 305/2024
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav S/o Ramdayal Jatav, Aged About 40
Years, R/o House 75 Block H Govardhan Vilas Sector 14 Girva
Udaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Sarita Yadav W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
House No 29, Sharda Nagar Opp Chirag Aquarium Near Bohra
Ganesh Ji Temple Udaipur And Presently Working As Senior
Assistant Secrecy Section (Uao) Mohanlal Sukhadia University
Udaipur Rajasthan 313001
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 08:54:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:44:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16896] (2 of 5) [CTA-295/2024] & two
connected matters
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Charan
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
10/04/2026
1. All the present transfer applications have been preferred by the
petitioner-husband seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by
respondent-wife under Sections 13, 27 and 24 of The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') respectively,
pending before Family Court No.1, Bhilwara to Family Court, Udaipur.
2. It has been submitted that the respondent - wife who is
working as a 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 subject
applications have been filed at Bhilwara without any plausible
reason.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted
fact that the child is studying at Udaipur and is living with her
mother, who is also employed at Udaipur. The Respondent-wife
nevertheless proceeded to file the proceedings at Bhilwara solely
with an intent to harass the petitioner.
4. Per contra Counsel for the respondent submitted that the
petitioner is facing a criminal trial at Bhilwara qua an FIR lodged
by the respondent wife for offences under Sections 498A, IPC as
well as The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 08:54:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16896] (3 of 5) [CTA-295/2024] & two
connected matters
2005. The petitioner is regularly attending the criminal
proceedings at Bhilwara and hence, he would suffer no hardship in
pursuing the present matters at Bhilwara. The present transfer
applications therefore, deserve to be rejected.
5. Counsel further 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 her residence. Counsel submits that once it has been decided
by the Court that the application was within the jurisdiction of the
Court at Bhilwara, they 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;
they having a minor child and the child studying at Udaipur, is also
not disputed.
8. In view of the above admitted facts, this Court is of the
opinion that even if the convenience/hardship of the petitioner-
husband is overlooked or ignored, it is crystal clear that it is the
minor child, who would be the actual sufferer if the proceedings
are permitted to be continued at Bhilwara.
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 08:54:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16896] (4 of 5) [CTA-295/2024] & two
connected matters
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. 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
proceeding from one Subordinate Court to another, even of its
own motion.
11. 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, the present transfer applications deserve to be and
are hereby allowed. Case Nos. 216/2022, 494/2023 & 48/2022
pending before Family Court No.1, Bhilwara are directed to be
transferred to Family Court, Udaipur.
12. Family Court No.1, Bhilwara is directed to transmit entire
record of the transferred matters to Family Court, Udaipur within a
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 08:54:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16896] (5 of 5) [CTA-295/2024] & two
connected matters
period of two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the present
order while fixing the next date for appearance of both the parties
before the transferee Court.
13. Both the parties 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.
14. 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 said party is essential on the said date.
15. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court No.1, Bhilwara and Family Court, Udaipur.
16. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
200-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 11/04/2026 at 08:54:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
