Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shilpi Vishwakarma vs Amit Vishwakarma on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
1 MCC-4862-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 4862 of 2025
SMT. SHILPI VISHWAKARMA
Versus
AMIT VISHWAKARMA
Appearance:
Shri Yash Nitin Nasery - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshar Deep - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The applicant/wife has filed the present application under Section
24 of C.P.C. making a prayer for transfer of case – RCS HM No.87/2025
which is pending before Principal Judge Family Court, Chhindwara to
the Family Court Sagar.
The applicant’s marriage with the respondent was solemnized on
26.02.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chhindwara and out of the
wedlock, a girl child was born on 23.10.2021. As per the applicant, soon
after the marriage, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house
due to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and the applicant started
living in a rented house at Sagar from the year 2022. The respondent
filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights before the Family Court, District
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
2 MCC-4862-2025
Chhindwara (RCS HM No.87/2025). The applicant filed proceedings
under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court Sagar. The respondent
was served and is contesting the proceedings before Family Court
Sagar.
It is submitted that the applicant being a lady is unable to attend
the proceedings at Chhindwara. The applicant has neither any means of
earning nor the respondent is paying any maintenance to the applicant. It
is submitted that the applicant has to look after her child and it is not
convenient for her to travel and attend the Court proceedings with her
child. It is submitted that as the respondent is financially sound and is
already contesting the proceedings in regard to application under Section
125 CrPC before Family Court Sagar, there will be no prejudice in
transferring the case pending before the Family Court, Chhindwara to
Family Court Sagar. It is also submitted that the distance between Sagar
and Chhindwara is about 260 Kms. It is submitted that it is well settled
principle that the convenience of wife must be seen while transferring
the matrimonial disputes. On these grounds prayer is made for transfer of
proceedings under Section 9 HMA pending before Family Court
Chhindwawa to the Family Court, Sagar. Learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon judgment of the Court in the case of Rajkumar
vs. Saroj 2010 (2) MPLJ 256, Saroj Devi Kushwaha vs. Satendra Singh
Kushwaha 2010 (2) MPLJ 633 and Jyoti Bangde vs. Sanjay Bangde
2010 (4) MPLJ 391.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
3 MCC-4862-2025
Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application. It is
submitted by counsel for the respondent that the respondent has
instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before
the Family Court Chhindwara as the cause of action substantially arose
within the jurisdiction of Chhindwara. It is submitted that the transfer
application has been filed by the applicant only with an intention to
harass the respondent and delay the proceedings. It is submitted that
mere inconvenience is not a ground to transfer the proceedings when the
case has been filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction. It is
submitted that respondent is ready to pay to and fro transport fair to the
applicant to attend the proceedings. It is submitted that even if the
applicant is facing inconvenience, she may avail the facility of video
conferencing to appear in the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the
application.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S.
Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, has 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 outSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
4 MCC-4862-2025
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.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts
between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when
the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be
tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same
issues and conflict of decisions.”
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar vs.
Saroj 2010 (2) MPLJ 256, has held as under :
“(6.) While analyzing the scope of Section 24, CPC and power of a Court
to transfer a case, the Supreme Court has observed in a case, reported as (2008) 3
SCC 659 , [LQ/SC/2008/57] Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust,
that convenience of the litigating parties at a particular place of trial, having
regard to the nature of the evidence and issues raised by the parties must be
considered and only thereafter, the power of transfer of a suit or appeal should be
exercised by the Court, in the interest of justice. For ready reference relevant
observation of the Supreme Court made in the case of Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Kandi
Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659 , [LQ/SC/2008/57] are quoted herein
below:-
21. Having considered rival contentions of the parties and having gone
through the proceedings of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order
deserves to be set aside. So far as the power of transfer is concerned, Section 24
of the Code empowers a High Court or a District Court to transfer inter alia anySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:133945 MCC-4862-2025
suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court subordinate to
it to any other Court for trial and disposal. The said provision confers
comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings
“at any stage” either on an application by any part or suo motu.
22. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be
imprisoned within a strait jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable
to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be
exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.
23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view
various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may
constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance
of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;
convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the
nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties;
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice
in the Court in which the suits is pending; important questions of law involved or
a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; “interest of justice”
demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some
of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a
suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by
no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant
considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to
have a “fair trial” in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not
only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.
24. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rani Jethmatani, this Court stated:-
(SCC p. 169, para 2) “2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:133946 MCC-4862-2025
dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a
motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of
a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something
more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of
public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to
exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the
circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case.” (Emphasis supplied)
25. Similarly in Subramaniam Swamy (Dr.) Vs. Ramakrishna Hegde
dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code,
A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated:- (SCC p. 9, para 8) “8. Under
the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court
on receipt of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed
reasonable grounds for such transfer provided that the State Government of the
State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the
transfer. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme
Court and is of wider amplitude. Under the present provision the Supreme Court
is empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from a
High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court
of another State if it is satisfied that such an order is expedient for the ends of
justice. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that
the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.
The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet
the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one Court has jurisdiction under the
Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
7 MCC-4862-2025
and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular Court
convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may
not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the
chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a
party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a
view to depriving that party of a fair trial. Parliament has, therefore, invested this
Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is
considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude – for
the ends of justice – have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion
of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or
justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see
that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of
the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it
is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioners plea for the
transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.” (Emphasis supplied)
26. In the case on hand, the High Court without stating anything
whatsoever as to allegations and counter-allegations, without considering the
reply submitted by the appellant herein and without recording any reason/ground
passed the impugned order transferring the case. The learned Counsel for the
contesting respondent no doubt submitted that the Court has not observed
anything since observations by a High Court one way or the other might
prejudice one of the parties to the suit. It is true that normally while making an
order of transfer, the Court may not enter into merits of the matters as it may
affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other
side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
8 MCC-4862-2025
mind by the Court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action.”
In the present case in hand, the applicant/wife has instituted
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Sagar. The
respondent/husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act at Chhindwara. It is the case of the non-applicant in the
application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act that the non-
applicant/husband is working in Railways, Bhopal and the applicant is
working in Sagar which is a transferable job, therefore, they can live
together at Bhopal on restitution of their conjugal rights. Thus, it is clear
that the non-applicant himself is not resident of Chhindwara where the
application has been filed and as such non-applicant would also have
difficulty to conduct the proceeding at Chhindwara.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the fact
that the applicant being a lady has to travel from Sagar to Chhindwara,
that too with a minor girl child, the M.C.C. stands allowed. It is directed
that RCS HM No.87/2025 which is pending before Principal Judge
Family Court, Chhindwara be transferred to the Family Court Sagar
where the application under Section 125 of the CrP.C. is pending. The
Presiding Officer of Family Court, Chhindwara is directed to send the
entire record of RCS HM No.87/2025 to the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sagar.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar on 06.04.2026 and further dates as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13394
9 MCC-4862-2025
fixed by the Family Court, Sagar, through video conferencing or
counsel.
The M.C.C. stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-03-2026
10:46:02