Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Rupinder Kaur vs Prit Pal Singh on 22 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:33461]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 110/2026
CNR: RJHC010454422026
URN: CTA / 291U / 2026
Smt. Rupinder Kaur W/o Prit Pal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, D/
o Shri Bakshish Singh At Present R/o Village Luhara Tehsil
Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Prit Pal Singh S/o Shri Kulwant Singh, Village 6 Ff Tehsil Shri
Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/07/2026
1. By way of the instant transfer application, the petitioner-wife
seeks transfer of Case No.49/2017, presently pending before the
learned Addl. Session Judge, Sri Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as “Court X”), to the Court of learned
Addl. District Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as “Court Y”).
2. The transfer application has been perused. The pleadings
and the material placed on record indicate that the respondent-
husband has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act before Court X. It is averred that the petitioner-wife
is presently residing at Raisingh Nagar and is not in a position to
undertake repeated travel to Sri Karanpur for attending the
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (2 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
proceedings on every date of hearing. It has further been pleaded
that the distance between the two places is approximately 35
kilometres and repeated travel would cause grave inconvenience,
financial hardship and avoidable physical and mental distress to
the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the aforesaid
proceedings be transferred from Court X to Court Y in the interest
of justice and convenience of the parties.
3. Though the matter has been called, none appears on behalf
of either of the parties. Nevertheless, this Court has proceeded to
examine the pleadings and the material available on record. At the
outset, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that issuance of
notice in every matrimonial transfer petition and keeping such
matters pending for years together, particularly where interim stay
orders continue to operate meanwhile, seldom advances the cause
of justice. The experience of this Court demonstrates that in a
considerable number of matters, transfer petitions remain pending
merely at the stage of service and completion of pleadings for two
to three years. Such prolongation neither subserves the
institutional interest of expeditious adjudication nor secures the
welfare of litigating spouses already embroiled in matrimonial
discord. Rather, it unnecessarily prolongs the agony of parties and
delays substantive adjudication of the disputes inter se them.
4. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that where the
circumstances emerging from the record unmistakably indicate
that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly leans in favour of
one forum and the governing judicial precedents also support such
transfer, insistence upon prolonged procedural formalities would
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (3 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
only defeat the very object sought to be achieved. When the
ultimate outcome appears reasonably foreseeable in light of
settled legal principles, deferring the matter for years merely for
completion of service would amount to allowing procedure to
overshadow justice itself.
5. The administrative as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with the
powers traceable to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is
sufficiently wide to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction
even suo motu wherever the ends of justice so demand. Such
power can also be invoked on the administrative side to ensure
effective and expeditious administration of justice. In the backdrop
of the present matrimonial dispute, this Court is of the considered
opinion that merely because none appears on behalf of either of
the parties, the matter need not be deferred where the record
itself unmistakably justifies exercise of jurisdiction. Keeping such
transfer petitions pending solely on account of non-appearance of
parties would only contribute to avoidable delay, thereby causing
prejudice to both the spouses. Matrimonial litigation, by its very
nature, calls for a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, and
procedural formalities ought not to be permitted to defeat the
larger objective of securing expeditious justice. Where the
proposed course neither occasions prejudice to either party nor
impinges upon their substantive rights, this Court would be
justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to obviate
unnecessary delay and to ensure that the lis reaches its logical
conclusion at the earliest.
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (4 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
6. This Court is conscious of the practical realities surrounding
matrimonial litigations. In a large number of matrimonial disputes,
proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC, cases under D.V. Act,
Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitions under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act and other allied proceedings are instituted at the
place where the wife is residing. Consequently, even otherwise,
the respondent-husband is invariably required to appear before
the Courts situated at the place where transfer is sought. In such
circumstances, requiring the wife to simultaneously contest
proceedings instituted by the husband at another distant place
results in avoidable multiplicity of travel, financial burden and
mental hardship for both parties. This Court finds substance in the
contention that where one spouse is already appearing before the
Courts situated at the place where the other spouse resides,
insistence upon continuation of connected matrimonial
proceedings at different stations becomes wholly cumbersome and
impractical. Consolidation of proceedings at one place not only
minimises inconvenience but also facilitates coordinated
adjudication and reduces the possibility of conflicting orders.
7. This Court is conscious that the rule of audi alteram partem
constitutes a foundational principle of natural justice and ordinarily
no order affecting the rights of a party ought to be passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing. At the same time, it is equally
well settled that the application of the said principle is not
inflexible and admits of well-recognised exceptions where the
circumstances so warrant. A mere transfer of proceedings from
one competent Court to another does not extinguish, curtail or
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (5 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
adversely affect the substantive rights of either party, inasmuch as
the lis continues to be adjudicated on its own merits by a Court of
competent jurisdiction. The present order neither determines any
issue in controversy nor confers any advantage upon either side
except facilitating a more convenient forum for adjudication.
Furthermore, where the material available on record unmistakably
demonstrates that the proposed transfer would neither occasion
irreversible prejudice to either party nor impinge upon their
substantive rights, this Court would be justified in exercising its
supervisory jurisdiction without insisting upon further procedural
formalities, particularly when postponement of the matter would
only prolong the litigation without advancing the cause of justice.
8. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that in the
peculiar facts of the present case, neither issuance of notice nor
adjournment on account of non-appearance of the parties would
serve any meaningful purpose. The record itself furnishes
sufficient material for exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently,
service upon the respondent deserves to be dispensed with and
this Court considers it appropriate to proceed with the matter in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
9. Perused the material available on record.
10. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinisha Jitesh Tolani
@ Manmeet Laghmani v. Jitesh Kishore Tolani reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 748 has observed that in matrimonial disputes
instituted by the husband against the wife, the convenience of the
wife deserves paramount consideration and ordinarily such
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (6 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
proceedings should be adjudicated at a place proximate to the
residence of the wife so as to obviate undue hardship.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the
facts and circumstances of the present case, and the grounds
urged in the transfer petition, this Court finds the present
application deserving of acceptance. 12. Accordingly, the
transfer petition is allowed. Consequently, Case No.49/2017
presently pending before Court X is transferred to the Court of
learned Addl. District Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri
Ganganagar (Court Y) for adjudication in accordance with law.
13. The learned Judge, Court X, is directed to forthwith transmit
the entire record of the case to the transferee Court. He shall also
prepare and forward a report containing particulars of all pending
matrimonial or connected proceedings, if any, between the parties
pending before his Court as on date and instituted thereafter.
14. It is further directed that henceforth the aforesaid
proceedings shall proceed exclusively before the learned Addl.
District Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar .
15. This Court further considers it appropriate to direct that the
learned District Judge concerned as well as the learned Judge,
Family Court concerned, shall endeavour, to the extent
administratively feasible, to ensure that all pending and future
litigations between the parties are coordinated and listed on one
and the same date so as to minimise multiplicity of appearances,
avoid unnecessary inconvenience and secure the ends of justice.
16. It is made clear that while adjudicating the present transfer
petition, this Court has neither examined nor expressed any
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33461] (7 of 7) [CTA-110/2026]
opinion upon the merits of the disputes inter se the parties. The
controversy raised in the substantive proceedings shall be
independently adjudicated by the competent Court uninfluenced
by any observation made herein. The present exercise is confined
only to determination of the forum most conducive and convenient
for fair adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
17. The stay application as well as all pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
102/Chhavi nagal/648
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:38:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:59:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
