Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Saroj Kanwar vs Vikram Singh on 16 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:31892]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 98/2026
CNR: RJHC010415392026
URN: CTA / 264U / 2026
Saroj Kanwar W/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 40 Years, D/o
Hanwant Singh Deora, R/o Rajputon Ka Vas, Paldi M., Tehsil
Sheoganj, District Sirohi Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Singh S/o Jor Singh Rathore, Resident Of Khimel, Tehsil
Bali, District Pali Raj..
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/07/2026
1. By way of the instant transfer application, the petitioner-wife
seeks transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 63/2025 presently pending
before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali
(hereinafter referred to as “Court X”), to the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Sirohi (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
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (2 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
urged that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Sirohi and is
not in a position to undertake repeated travel to Pali for attending
the proceedings on every date of hearing. It has further been
contended that the distance between the two places is
approximately 116 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
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (3 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
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.
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.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (4 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
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. 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.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (5 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (6 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
urged in the transfer petition, this Court finds the present
application deserving of acceptance.
12. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. Consequently,
Civil Misc. Case No. 63/2025 presently pending before Court X is
transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, 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
Additional District Judge, Sirohi.
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
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31892] (7 of 7) [CTA-98/2026]
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
97/Pooja Tak/700
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:31:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 09:51:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
