[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Farjana vs Abdul Rauf (2026:Rj-Jd:13434) on 19 March, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:13431]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 27/2025

Anju W/o Sukhvir Punia, Aged About 39 Years, D/o Dhokalram
R/o Ward No. 30, Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sukhvir Punia S/o Sundar Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Suratpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu,raj.
----Respondent
Connected with

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 220/2025

Mrs. Shailaja Alias Shalu Kanwar W/o Kuldeep Singh, Aged
About 35 Years, D/o Dharm Singh Charan Resident Of Kotada,
Police Station Kalandari District Sirohi Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Singh S/o Baldev Singh Charan, 28 Shriji Vihar
Brabhamno Ka Gudha Amberi Bhuvana District Udaipur
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 240/2025

Munni Soni W/o Deepak Soni, Aged About 32 Years, Resident
Of Plot No. 72, Vinayak Vihar D, Rawan Gate, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Soni S/o Ramesh Chandra Soni, Resident Of Plot No.
72, Ramnagar, Front Of Vidhya Public School, Ramramsa
Traders Gali, Banar Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 318/2025

Farjana D/o Haji Mohammad, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of
42, Ghosi Colony, bhati Market Ke Pass, Pali, District Pali, Raj..
----Petitioner

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:45:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (2 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

Versus
Abdul Rauf S/o Mohammad Rafik, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Karan Nagar, Gali No. 1, Seoganj,tehsil Seoganj,
District Sirohi, Raj..
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Jani for
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA
No.27/25)
Mr. Bajrang Singh (in TA No.220/25)
Mr. Arshdeep Jattana for
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta (in TA
No.240/25)
Mr. S.K. Joshi (in TA No.318/25)
For Respondent(s) : None

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026
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. In all the present petitions, service upon the respondents

stand duly completed. However, despite completion of service,

none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. 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/ Specific Relief Act, 1963 to the Court within whose

jurisdiction the petitioner-wife is presently residing/working.

4. The petitioners in the respective applications have invoked

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

Procedure, praying that the various proceedings pending before

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:45:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (3 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

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.

5. 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.

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

that the petitioner-wife has already instituted proceedings against

her husband under Sections 125, 144 Cr.P.C./ Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 / 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 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:45:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (4 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

7. Heard the Counsel.

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

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

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:45:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (5 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

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.
...

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."

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (6 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

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, 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. 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

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (7 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

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

(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."

14. 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.

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (8 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

15. 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.

16. 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:

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

1. CTA 27/2025 Case Additional Additional No.182/2024 District Judge District Judge, (Anju Vs. (Sukhvir Punia No.1, Rajgarh Rawatsar, Sukhvir Vs. Anju) District Churu Hanumangarh Punia)

2. CTA Case Family Court Family Court, 220/2025 No.516/2024 No.03, District Sirohi (Kuldeep Singh Udaipur (Mrs. Vs. Shailaja @ Shailaja Alias Shalu Kanwar) Shalu Kanwar Vs. Kuldeep Singh)

3. CTA Case Family Court Family Court 240/2025 No.38/2024 No.2, Jodhpur No.2, Jaipur (Deepak Soni (Munni Soni Vs. Munni Soni) Vs. Deepak Soni)

4. CTA Case Family Court, Family Court, 318/2025 No.28/2025 Sirohi Pali (Abdul Rauf Vs. (Farjana Vs. Farjana) Abdul Rauf)

(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 02:21:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13431] (9 of 9) [CTA-27/2025]

17. 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

while fixing the next date for appearance of both the parties

before the transferee Court.

18. 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. Only in cases where the other party

remained unserved or is proceeded ex-parte, the transferee Court

shall be under an obligation to issue fresh notices to the

respondent and act further in accordance with law.