Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nidhi vs Prashant on 23 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:34012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 165/2026
CNR: RJHC010617762026 | URN: CTA / 415U / 2026
Nidhi W/o Prashant, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Shri Shyam Singh
Shankhla Resident Of Barmer, At Present Mahamandir Teesri Pol
Near Ramdwara, Jodhpur. And 43, Ashok Nagar Mahamandir
Ward No. 55, Jodhpur, Tehsil. Jodhpur Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Prashant S/o Chaganlal, Resident Of Laxmi Nagar, Barmer Tehsil
District Barmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/07/2026
1. By way of the instant transfer application, the petitioner-wife
seeks transfer of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4/2025, presently pending
before the learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 1,
Barmer (hereinafter referred to as “Court X”), to the Court of
learned Family Court, Jodhpur (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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Court X. It is
urged that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Jodhpur and
is not in a position to undertake repeated travel to Barmer for
attending the proceedings on every date of hearing. It has further
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (2 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
been contended that the distance between the two places is
approximately 200 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. 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
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (3 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
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, which has already consumed
considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that
prolonging the controversy by issuing notices and awaiting a
contested adjudication on the question of transfer would only
result in avoidable delay, thereby causing prejudice to both the
husband and the wife. 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.
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,
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (4 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
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.
6.1 It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that
though an ex parte decree has already been passed in one of the
matrimonial proceedings in favour of the respondent-husband, the
petitioner-wife has preferred an application under Order IX Rule
13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of the said
ex parte decree, which is presently pending adjudication before
the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Barmer. It has further
been pointed out that the respondent-husband had also instituted
another petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court at Barmer.
Upon a transfer application preferred by the petitioner-wife, the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (5 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
said proceedings already stand transferred to the competent
Family Court at Jodhpur by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Transfer Application No.
113/2024.
6.2 The aforesaid circumstances assume considerable
significance. The proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the proceedings
seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the said Act,
as also the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, arise out of
the same matrimonial relationship and involve substantially
overlapping questions of fact and law. Their continuation before
different forums would not only result in avoidable multiplicity of
proceedings but may also give rise to inconsistent findings. The
interests of justice, judicial discipline and orderly administration of
matrimonial litigation would, therefore, be better served by
ensuring that all such connected proceedings remain before one
forum.
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
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (6 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
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
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.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (7 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
12. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. Consequently,
Civil Misc. Case No. 04/2025 presently pending before Court X is
transferred to the Court of learned Family Court, Jodhpur (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 Family
Judge, District Jodhpur.
14.1 In view of the peculiar facts noticed hereinabove, and in
continuation of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by this
Court, it is further directed that the application under Order IX
Rule 13 CPC presently pending before the learned Additional
District Judge No. 1, Barmer shall also stand transferred to the
learned Family Court, Jodhpur. The learned Additional District
Judge No. 1, Barmer shall transmit the entire record of the said
proceedings along with the record of the present case forthwith to
the transferee Court.
14.2 This Court is further of the considered opinion that the
petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, the petition seeking dissolution of
marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (already
transferred by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the
Coordinate Bench), and the proceedings arising out of the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34012] (8 of 8) [CTA-165/2026]
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC deserve to proceed
contemporaneously before the same Court.
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
106/Pooja Tak/700
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 11:14:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 03:18:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
