[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Khushi vs Gaurav on 28 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:19615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 10/2026
Smt. Khushi D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Of
House No D 8 Sector 6 Ridhi Sidhi 1 St Sri Ganganagar Presently
Risiding At Khidarpur Jadon Khandar District Sawai Madhopur
----Petitioner
Versus
Gaurav S/o Shri Bharat Bhushan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
Of House No 1055 Street No 6 Govind Nagari Abohar Tehsil
Abohar District Fajilka Punjab
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 291/2025
Smt. Khushi D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of House No. D-8, Sector-6, Ridhi Sidhi-I, Sri
Ganganagar Presently Residing At Khidarpur Jadon, Khandar,
District Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Gaurav S/o Shri Bharat Bhushan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
Of House No.1055, House No.1055, Street No.06,govind Nagari,
Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fajilka (Punjab)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind with
Ms. Sonika
Mr. Amit Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
28/04/2026
1. The matter (S.B. Civil Transfer Application Application No.
10/2026) comes up on an application for recalling of order dated
16.02.2026 passed by this Court whereby the parties were
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19615] (2 of 6) [CTA-10/2026]
directed to remain present before the Court to explore the
possibility of settlement.
2. However, the respondent and the petitioner alongwith her
minor son, did remain present before the Court on 07.03.2026
and the Court interacted with them in detail, but then, no
settlement could be arrived at between the parties.
3. The application for recalling of order dated 16.02.2026
therefore, remains of no consequence and the same is hence,
disposed of.
4. The present transfer applications have been filed with the
prayer for transfer of Civil Case Nos. 254/2024 (Khushi vs. Gaurav
Chalana) & 16/2023 (Gaurav Chalana vs. Smt. Khushi) under
Section 13(1) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 25 of
the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 respectively, pending before
Family Court No.2, Sri Ganganagar.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-wife has recently secured employment as a Senior
Teacher vide order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure-4) and is
currently posted at Government Sr. Secondary School, Khidarpur
Jadon, Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. Further, Sri Ganganagar
is at a distance of 700 kms from Sawai Madhopur and she would
not be able to travel to and fro, the said long distance in one
single day.
6. It has been submitted that the petitioner is under an
obligation to take care of her minor son too and keeping into
consideration his studies as well as the petitioner's job, it would
cause a comparatively more hardship to the petitioner if she is
required to travel to Sri Ganganagar on every date of hearing.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19615] (3 of 6) [CTA-10/2026]
7. It has further been submitted that earlier a Transfer
Application being CTA No. 25/2025 was filed before this Court for
transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 16/23 (application under the
provisions of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 filed by the
respondent-husband), but the same was dismissed vide order
dated 19.08.2025 with an observation that as other matters
between the parties are pending at Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner
would even otherwise be required to attend the same at Sri
Ganganagar. However, vide the said order, it was observed that if
transfer application qua all the matters is filed by the petitioner,
the request shall be considered sympathetically.
8. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record.
9. It is the settled position 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 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19615] (4 of 6) [CTA-10/2026]
10. With regards to 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 and she cannot be expected to travel long distances
either while accompanying the minor or while leaving them in the
care of others, to attend the proceedings regularly. Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the case of Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, (2002)
10 SCC 136 held as under:
"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."
11. So far as the plea of long-distance travel and the resultant
inconvenience to the petitioner-wife is concerned, Bombay High
Court, recently, while allowing the transfer petition in the case of
Archana Dattatray Jagtap vs Dattatray Chandev Jagtap,
(2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3920), observed as under:
"6. Considering the law as laid down by the
Supreme Court in the aforementioned
judgments and the facts of the present case,
where the distance between Malshiras, District
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19615] (5 of 6) [CTA-10/2026]
Solapur, and Belapur is around 300 kms, in my
view, it is inconvenient for the wife to travel 300
kilometres to attend the hearing and then return
the same day, travelling 300 kms. To do so, she
would have to stay overnight at Belapur to
attend the proceedings filed by the husband.
She has also filed three proceedings before the
Court of Malshiras, District Solapur. Hence, I am
convinced that the transfer application deserves
to be allowed."
12. 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 of nine years under her care, would be at
serious hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to
attend the proceedings at Sri Ganganagar. Further, accompanying
the child with her on each date or leaving the child in care of other
family members, both would not be in the interest, welfare and
mental health of the child.
13. The present transfer applications hence, deserve to be and
are hereby allowed. Civil Misc. Case Nos. 254/2024 & 16/2023
pending before Family Court No.2, Sri Ganganagar are directed to
be transferred to Family Court, Sawai Madhopur for trial and
disposal in accordance with law.
14. Family Court No.2, Sri Ganganagar is directed to send the
complete file/record of Civil Misc. Case Nos. 254/2024 & 16/2023
to the transferee Court within a 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 Family Court at Sawai
Madhopur
15. Both the parties shall remain present before Family Court,
Sawai Madhopur on the date as fixed by the transferor Court and
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19615] (6 of 6) [CTA-10/2026]
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.
16. 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.
17. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court No.2, Sri Ganganagar and Family Court,
Sawai Madhopur.
18. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
28-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:59:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
