Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Munesh Kumari Alias Manisha vs Pappu Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:15228) on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:15221]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 185/2025
Smt. Sonal W/o Fateh Singh, Aged About 42 Years, D/o Shri
Arjun Singh, Resident Of 42, Rawala Ki Gali, Koliwara, Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali, Raj
----Petitioner
Versus
Fateh Singh S/o Shri Kirath Singh, Resident Of Plot No 310/311
Mansarovar Scheme Opposite Dps School Pal Bye Pass Jodhpur
Raj
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 253/2025
Saroj Choudhary D/o Late Dalip Singh Choudhary, Aged About
41 Years, W/o Ravindra Kumar, R/o Village Neemla, Tehsil
Nohar, Hanumangarh At Present R/o C/o Shankar Lal Beniwal,
Plot No 11/21, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Hardatsingh, Aged About 41 Years,
Ward No 40, Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh Raj.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 268/2025
Smt. Jyoti D/o Shri Namichand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Ward No. 21 Village Chhapar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Satyendra S/o Shri Munna Lal Harijan, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o Ward No. 32 Harijan Basti, Village Fatehapur Shekhawati,
District Sikar, Rajasthan. Mobile No. 9462355668
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (2 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 294/2025
Munesh Kumari Alias Manisha W/o Pappu Ram, Aged About 33
Years, D/o Shri Ranjeet Ram R/o Lichana Tehsil Nava, District
Deedwana Kuchaman Raj.presently R/o Toliayasar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Pappu Ram S/o Shri Nathuram Nayak, R/o Village- Lichana,
Tehsil Nava, District Deedwana Kuchaman Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ayushi Rathore on behalf of
Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore (in CTA
No. 185/2025)
Mr. Pradeep Bhakar (in CTA No.
253/2025)
Mr. Manish Dadhich (in CTA No.
268/2025)
Mr. Naresh Singh (in CTA No.
294/2025)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Godara &
Mr. Jaydeep Poonia on behalf of
Mr. Manjeet Godara (in CTA No.
253/2025)
Mr. Avinash Bhati (in CTA
No.268/2025)
None present in CTA Nos. 185/2025 &
294/2025
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/04/2026
1. As all these transfer petitions 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
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (3 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/Guardian &
Wards Act, 1890/Specific Relief Act, 1963 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
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 all these petitions service upon the respondents stand duly
complete. However, despite completion of service, none has appeared
on behalf of the respondents in CTA Nos. 185/2025 and 294/2025.
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 Section 12/23 of The Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 / Section 9 or 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act,
1955/Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, at the
place where she is presently residing. It is urged that, despite the
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (4 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
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.
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 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
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (5 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
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.
...
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 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (6 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
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 such(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (7 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]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.
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.
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (8 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
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:
S.No. Civil Transfer Case Number Court where Court
Application (Family the case is where the
Number & Title Court/Trial pending case is
Court) transferre
d
1. CTA 185/2025 Civil Misc. Case Family Court Additional
No. 658/2025 No.01, District
(Smt. Sonal Vs.
(Fateh Singh Jodhpur Judge,
Fateh Singh)
Vs. Smt. Sonal) Metropolitan Sumerpur,
Pali.
2. CTA 253/2025 Case Additional Family
No.169/2025 District Judge Court No.2,
(Saroj
(Ravindra (Family Jaipur
Choudhary Vs.
Kumar Vs. Court),
Ravindra Kumar)
Saroj Bhadra,
Choudhary) Hanumangarh
3. CTA 268/2025 Civil Case Additional Additional
No.10/2024 District District
(Smt. Jyoti Vs.
(Satyendra Vs. Judge, Judge,
Satyendra)
Smt. Jyoti) Fatehpur, Sujangarh,
Sikar Churu
4. CTA 294/2025 Civil Original Senior Civil Additional
Suit Judge, District
(Munesh Kumari
No.23/2025 Kuchaman Judge,
@ Manisha Vs.
(Pappu Ram Vs. City, Sujangarh,
Pappu Ram)
Munesh Kumari Deedwana- Churu
@ Manisha) Kuchaman
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.
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15221] (9 of 9) [CTA-185/2025 &
three connected matters]
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.
19. Needless to observe that if any application is filed by the
respondent-husband with a request to permit him to appear
through Video Conferencing, the learned Court shall be at liberty
to decide the same keeping into consideration the fact whether
the physical appearance of the respondent is essential on the each
date or not.
20. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith to
all the transferor as well as transferee Courts.
21. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
104, 107, 108
& 109-Manila/-
(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 05:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:52:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
