Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Cta / 75U / 2026Smt. Usha vs Mukesh (2026:Rj-Jd:23411) on 15 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:23411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 34/2026
Smt. Usha W/o Mukesh, Aged About 40 Years, D/o Ravta Ram R/
o Gandhi Nagar Abu Road District Sirohi
----Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh S/o Shankar Lal, R/o 02 Navdurga Nagar Jhalamand
Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/05/2026
1. By way of the instant transfer application, the petitioner-wife
seeks transfer of Case No. 112/2024 presently pending before the
learned Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur
(hereinafter referred to as “Court X”), to the competent Court of
Abu Road (hereinafter referred to as “Court Y”).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the respondent-husband has instituted proceedings
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Court X. It is
urged that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Abu Road,
District Sirohi and is not in a position to undertake repeated travel
to Jodhpur for attending the proceedings on every date of hearing.
It has further been contended that the distance between the two
places is approximately 269 kilometres and repeated travel would
cause grave inconvenience, financial hardship and avoidable
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23411] (2 of 6) [CTA-34/2026]
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. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the Bar. 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
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.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23411] (3 of 6) [CTA-34/2026]
5. This Court further notices that Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure confers wide and comprehensive powers upon the High
Court to transfer proceedings either on an application of a party or
even suo motu whenever the ends of justice so require. The
provision is fundamentally intended to ensure that procedural
mechanisms remain subservient to the larger cause of fair
adjudication. The judicial system exists to facilitate access to
justice and not to perpetuate procedural hardship. Thus, in the
peculiar facts of the present case and in the overarching interest
of justice, this Court considers it appropriate to decide the present
transfer petition expeditiously instead of relegating the parties to
prolonged procedural delays.
6. This Court is also 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
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23411] (4 of 6) [CTA-34/2026]
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. Ordinarily, the rule of audi alteram partem constitutes a
foundational principle of natural justice and no order adverse to a
party ought to be passed without affording an opportunity of
hearing. However, it is equally well-settled that the application of
such principle is not inflexible and may admit of exceptions where
the circumstances so warrant. Mere transfer of proceedings from
one competent forum to another does not, by itself, extinguish,
dilute or adversely affect the substantive rights of either party.
The merits of the case shall be examined by the Court and as such
a simple order of a transfer of a case from one court to other
Court can’t be construed as an order adversarial to the interest of
the other party. Furthermore, where the respondent is already
required to appear before Courts situated at the place where
transfer is sought and is regularly attending proceedings thereat,
no irreversible prejudice can be said to be occasioned merely by
transfer of one additional connected proceeding to the same
station.
8. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that
insistence upon issuance of notice in the peculiar facts of the
present case would only prolong litigation without serving any
meaningful purpose. Consequently, service upon the respondent
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23411] (5 of 6) [CTA-34/2026]
deserves to be dispensed with. Thus, notice not required to be
issued to the respondent.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
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
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. 112/2024 presently pending before Court X is
transferred to the Court of learned ADJ, Abu Road, District Sirohi
(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 ADJ, Abu
Road, District Sirohi.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23411] (6 of 6) [CTA-34/2026]
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
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
25-divya/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:35:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:20:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
