[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Shweta Sharma vs Anuj Bhaskar (2026:Rj-Jd:11783) on 12 March, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:11782]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 205/2025

Mamta Kumari W/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Shri
Ramswaroop, R/o Ward No. 40, Laxmi Nagar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Ghanshyam S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No. 05, RCP Colony, Norangdesar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, (Raj.)
----Respondent
and

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 215/2025

Smt. Shweta Sharma W/o Shri Anuj Bhaskar, Aged About 35
Years, D/o Shri Tusliram Sharma R/o B-6, Gandhi Colony,
Pawanpuri, Bikaner, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Anuj Bhaskar S/o Shri Jayant Bhaskar, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 309, Aayojna Sky, Krishi Anusadhan Nagar, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 230/2025

Smt. Upasana Jain W/o Shri Nikhilesh Tayal, Aged About 42
Years, D/o Shri Padam Ji Resident Of 2/230 Tiwari Ka Kuan,
Darzi Pada, Munshi Bazar, Alwar(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Nikhilesh Tayal S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Tayal, R/o 70,
Nakoda Complex, Hiranmagari, Sector No.4, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 309/2025

Minaxi D/o Murarilal, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Hemant
Prakash, Resident Of Ward No. 27 Nohar, Tehsil Nohar District

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (2 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Prakash Bhanbhairu S/o Shyamsunder, Resident of
Ward No. 32 Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu.
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA
No.205/25)
Mr. Mukul Krishna Vyas (in TA
No.215/25)
Ms. Shruthi Rathi for
Mr. Anuj Sahlot (in TA No.230/25)
Mr. G.R. Bhari (in TA No.309/25)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar for
Mr. Ravinder Kumar (in TA
No.205/25)
Mr. Ankit Bhaskar (in TA No.215/25)
Mr. R.S. Mankad (in TA No.230/25)
with Ms. Priti Gehlot
Mr. Ravi Panwar (in TA No.309/25)

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/03/2026

1. As all these transfer applications arise out of similar

circumstances and involve common questions of law, they are

being decided by this common order.

2. All the petitions have been preferred by the petitioner-wife

seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by the respondent-

husband under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

to the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner-wife is

presently residing/working.

3. The petitioners in the respective applications have invoked

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (3 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

Procedure, praying that the various proceedings pending before

different Courts be transferred to the place of their

residence/workplace. Although the factual matrix in each petition

varies, the grounds raised by the Petitioner wives are substantially

common and relate to the hardships faced by them in attending

proceedings at distant forums.

4. In some of the petitions, it has been urged that the

petitioner-wife, being a woman with minor child/children solely

under her care, faces grave difficulty in travelling long distances,

particularly in the absence of any family member to accompany

her, rendering such travel with minors practically impossible. In

some matters, the petitioner-wife has asserted that she is

financially dependent upon her parents, lacking any independent

source of income. In some, it has been averred that they reside

with their ailing or aged parents, who require constant

supervision.

5. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted

that the petitioner-wife has already instituted proceedings against

her husband under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005/Offences under Indian Penal Code, at

the place where she is presently residing. It is urged that, despite

the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-husband has

instituted a separate case in another district/city/town only with

the intent to cause harassment. In these circumstances, it would

be extremely difficult and practically impossible for her to attend

the proceedings before the Court chosen by the husband.

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (4 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

6. Counsel for the respondents does not refute the above facts.

However, in one of the petitions (in S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No.

230/2025), in alternate, Counsel submitted that the respondent

be permitted to appear through virtual mode whenever his

physical presence is not required for any specific purpose.

7. Heard the Counsels.

8. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial

matters generally, it is 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."

9. So far as the ground of the minor child/children 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

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (5 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

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."

10. With respect to the plea of financial constraints, the

petitioner-wife having no independent source of income, and

further, old/ailing parents under care, it has been observed in

several decisions that compelling a woman with limited means to

travel long distances on each date of hearing would result in

undue hardship. 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.
...

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (6 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

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. No doubt, the said evidence can be recorded on appearance of the petitioner either physically or by virtual mode but keeping in mind the over all situation and the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to transfer the subject-case as asked for by the petitioner-wife so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner-wife."

11. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10

SCC 480 :

"The petitioner is a resident of Durgapur, District Burdwan, West Bengal. She states that she is a distressed woman without any financial resources and that with the meagre income which she gets by way of maintenance, it is not possible for her to travel from Durgapur to Delhi to prosecute the case. She also submits that there is nobody to accompany her to Delhi. The above fact is not traversed in the counter affidavit. Having regard to the circumstances, we think that it would be appropriate to order transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi."

12. 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), held 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 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,

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (7 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

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."

13. So far as the plea of respondent to appear through Video

Conferencing is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

P. Prashanti Vs. P.V. Nandakumar, Transfer Petition (Civil)

No. 1281/2024 (decided on 06.01.2025) while dealing with a

similar circumstance, held as under:

"3. Considering the fact that the petitioner-wife has two minor children, a boy and a girl to look after and that she is residing at Gurugram, Haryana, she has immense difficulty in attending court proceedings at Visakhapatnam, it would be expedient in the ends of justice to transfer the subject-case as asked for by the petitioner-wife.

4. The Transfer Petition stands allowed accordingly.

5. The Court where proceedings are pending shall transfer the records to the transferee Court promptly and without any delay.

6. Liberty is granted to the respondent to appear through video conferencing, in view of his medical condition, until and unless his physical presence is absolutely necessary."

14. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal -

(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage,-

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (8 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

(3) For the purposes of this section,-

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;

(b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.

(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.

(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it."

15. This Court observes that, in the ordinary course, transfer

petitions instituted before this Court often remain pending for

considerable periods, primarily on account of the other party

evading service. In several matters, interim protection granted by

this Court results in the matrimonial proceedings before the

concerned Court remaining stalled for years.

16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in order to

secure the ends of justice as well as to ensure expeditious disposal

of the proceedings, this Court considers it appropriate to exercise

its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, all the present transfer applications are allowed for

the reasons analysed in the preceding paras.

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (9 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

17. Consequently, in each of the petitions noted hereinabove, the

Court from which the case is being transferred and the Court to

which it stands transferred are indicated as under:

S. Civil Case Court where Court where Transfer Number the case is the case is No. Application (Family pending transferred Number & Court/Trial Title Court)

1. CTA Case No. Family Court, Court of 205/2025 181/2025 Hanumangarh Additional (Ghanshyam District & (Mamta Vs. Mamta Sessions Kumari Vs. Kumari) Judge, Nohar Ghanshyam)

2. CTA Case Family Court Family Court 215/2025 No.314/2025 No.04, Jaipur No.1, Bikaner (CIS No. Metropolitan (Smt. Shweta 1366/2025) First Sharma Vs. (Anuj Anuj Bhaskar Vs. Bhaskar) Smt. Shweta Tiwari)

3. CTA Case Family Court Family Court 230/2025 No.207/2025 No.01, No.1, Alwar (Sh. Nikhilesh Udaipur (Smt. Tayal Vs. Upasana Jain Smt. Upasana Vs. Sh.

Jain) Nikhilesh Tayal)

4. CTA Case Addl. District Addl. District 309/2025 No.90/2020 & Sessions & Sessions (Hemant Judge No.2, Judge, Nohar, (Minaxi Vs. Prakash Rajgarh, Hanumangarh Hemant Bhanbhairu Churu Prakash Vs. Minaxi) Bhanbhairu)

18. The transferor Court is directed to transmit entire record of

the transferred matter to the transferee Court within a period of

two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the present order

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:16 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (10 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]

while fixing the next date for appearance of both the parties

before the transferee Court.

19. Both the parties shall remain present before the transferee

Court on the date as fixed by the transferor Court and the

transferee Court shall not be under an obligation to issue fresh

notices to any of the parties, as the present order is passed in

presence of both the Counsels.