[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hemlata Garg vs Prakash Garg (2026:Rj-Jd:20501) on 29 April, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:20501]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 59/2026

Hemlata Garg D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Garg, Aged About 33 Years,
W/o Shri Prakash Garg, R/o Dhobi Mohalla, Village Ranawas,
Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
Prakash Garg S/o Shri Mishrilal Garg, R/o Adarsh Colony, Behind
S.D.M. Residence, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore for
                                     Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)              :     Ms. Manisha Rajpurohit



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

29/04/2026

1. The present transfer application has been filed by the

petitioner wife with the prayer for transfer of Case No.85/2025

(Prakash Garg Vs. Hemlata Garg) under Section 13 of The Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955')

pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sumerpur to

Family Court, Pali.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner-wife is presently residing at Ranawas and would be

required to travel a considerable distance to attend the

proceedings pending at Sumerpur as there is no direct

transportation facility available between the two places. It has

further been submitted that the petitioner being under an

obligation to take care of a minor girl, it would be practically

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:00:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20501] (2 of 6) [CTA-59/2026]

impossible for her to accompany the child to Sumerpur on every

date of hearing.

3. Counsel further submits that other proceedings are also

pending between the parties at Pali.

4. Per contra Counsel for the respondent submits that the

mother of the respondent is suffering from age related ailments

and he is the sole person to take care of her. Hence, it is the

respondent who would be suffering a comparative more hardship

in travelling from Sumerpur to Pali.

5. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

6. It is the 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 29/04/2026 at 10:00:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20501] (3 of 6) [CTA-59/2026]

7. So far as the fact of the respondent's mother suffering from

any disease is concerned, neither any reply to the present petition

has been filed nor any document to substantiate the said

averment has been placed on record.

8. In that view of the matter, the petition pending at Sumerpur

deserves to be transferred to the place where the petitioner is

residing. The same is also essential in view of the fact that a

minor child is in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife. 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

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:00:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20501] (4 of 6) [CTA-59/2026]

Bombay which the husband has to defend. We think, in the circumstances, that the transfer petition should be allowed."

9. This Court in Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jatav Vs. Sarita Yadav; S.B.

Civil Transfer Application No. 295/2024 and other connected

matter (decided on 10.04.2026), while dealing with a similar issue,

observed as under:

"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......"

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:00:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20501] (5 of 6) [CTA-59/2026]

10. 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 under her care would be at a comparatively

more hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to

attend the proceedings at Sumerpur. The present transfer

application hence, deserve to be and is hereby allowed. Case

No.85/2025 (Prakash Garg Vs. Hemlata Garg) pending before the

Court of Additional District Judge, Sumerpur is directed to be

transferred to Family Court, Pali for trial and disposal in

accordance with law.