[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Prajapat vs Mohit Kumar Bhati (2026:Rj-Jd:17819) on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:17819]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 54/2026
Santosh Prajapat D/o Poonaram, Aged About 29 Years, W/o
Mohit Kumar Bhati, R/o Near Hanuman Temple, Village -
Badoud,tehsil - Desuri, District - Pali (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Mohit Kumar Bhati S/o Dinesh Chandra Bhati, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Ajeet Colony, Aburoad, District - Sirohi
(Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/04/2026
1. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.
2. The present transfer application has been filed with the
prayer for transfer of Case No.3/2026 (Mohit Kumar Bhati Vs.
Santosh Prajapat) under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') pending before
Family Court, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-wife is presently residing at Bali, District Pali, and would
be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the
proceedings at Abu Road, District Sirohi. It is further submitted
that the petitioner has no family member to accompany her and,
therefore, would face considerable hardship in undertaking such
travel on each date of hearing if the proceedings continue at
Sirohi.
4. Counsel further submits that criminal proceedings are
already pending between the parties at Bali. Because of the said
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:27:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 05:27:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17819] (2 of 4) [CTA-54/2026]
proceedings undertaken by the applicant-wife, the non-applicant-
husband, just to harass the applicant, filed an application under
Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before Family Court, Abu Road,
District Sirohi. It has therefore been prayed that the pending
application at Family Court, Abu Road be transferred to the Court
of Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali.
5. Heard the counsel. 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."
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:27:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 05:27:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17819] (3 of 4) [CTA-54/2026]
7. 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."
8. In view of the submissions made and in view of the above
settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner would be at comparative hardship if compelled to travel
a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Sirohi. The
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:27:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17819] (4 of 4) [CTA-54/2026]
present transfer application hence, deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. Case No.3/2026 (Mohit Kumar Bhati Vs. Santosh
Prajapat) pending before Family Court, Abu Road, District Sirohi is
directed to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge,
Bali, District Pali for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
9. Family Court, Abu Road, District Sirohi is directed to send the
complete file/record of Case No.3/2026 (Mohit Kumar Bhati Vs.
Santosh Prajapat) to Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali
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 Court of Additional
District Judge, Bali, District Pali on the date as fixed.
10. 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.
11. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court, Abu Road, District Sirohi and the Court of
Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali.
12. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
35-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:27:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
