Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Anita vs Suresh Choudhary (2026:Rj-Jd:14468) on 27 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:14460]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 260/2024
Smt. Anjul Sharma W/o Rishi Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, D/o
Late Shri Deenanath Ji, R/o House No.2, Dps Colony, Sanchi
Enclave, Bhuwana-Pratapnagar, By Pass, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rishi Sharma S/o Shri Nandkishore Ji Sharma, Aged About 46
Years, R/o House No.131, Kailash Nagar, Chamti Kheda Road,
Chittorgarh, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
and
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 127/2025
Pankti Alias Rama D/o Shree Ram Sharma, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of Village Bandva, Tehsil Rajaldesar, District
Churu (Rajasthan) Aadhar Number 3276 3656 2607. Mobile
number 9352814080
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajveer Alias Marutinandan S/o Shree Vinodkumar Pujari, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Ward Number 9, Ratangarh Road, Salasar,
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan) Aadhar Number
7486 0463 7850 Mobile Number 9079999212
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 175/2025
Smt. Bhavya Alias Rinku Kanwar W/o Dushyant Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, D/o Ishwar Singh Rathore, R/o Village Aamla,
Tehsil Phalodi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Dhushyan Singh S/o Aanad Singh Bhati, R/o Haveli Guest
House, Opposite Toorji Ka Jhalra, Makrana Mohalla,
Ghantaghar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (2 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 187/2025
Smt. Sapana Jain W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Flat No. 102, Marudhar Kesari Apartment,
Mohanpura Puliya, Dist. Jodhpur,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Gyanchand Ji, Aged About 49
Years, Resident Of Ramdev Road, Opposite To Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank, District Pali (Raj)
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 252/2025
Smt. Priyanka Kanwar W/o Yashvardhan Singh, Aged About 34
Years, D/o Shree Tribhuvan Singh Residing At Village Gunrala
Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Yashvardhan Singh S/o Shree Brijpal Singh, Aged About 31
Years, 8-A-Village Indroka, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 262/2025
Smt. Divya Sharma W/o Kailash Sharma, Aged About 31 Years,
D/o Shri Moolchand Sharma ,r/o Khetaram Ji Ki Pyau, Sai Baba
Road, Tehsil Pali District Pali Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Sharma S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Old Jatawas, Barmer Tehsil And District Barmer Raj.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 283/2025
Smt. Anita D/o Shri Deeparam, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 4,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (3 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
Janta Colony, Pali, Ps Transport Nagar, Pali, Tehsil And District
Pali, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Choudhary S/o Shri Chunaram, R/o Hariyamali, Ps
Bagadinagar, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 329/2025
Smt. Saroj Kumari Teli W/o Shri Vishal Sahu And D/o Shri
Bherulal Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Tehnal Gate,
Shahpura, Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Vishal Sahu S/o Shri Vriddhi Chand Sahu, R/o Mehndi Baag,
Teliyon Ki Gali, Police Station Kotwali, Tonk, Tehsil And District
Tonk Raj.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 332/2025
Smt. Sanju Alias Sundari W/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 28
Years, D/o Shri Rupa Ram Bhati, R/o Village-Khichan, Near Bird
Feeding Centre, Khichan, Tehsil District-Phalodi Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
Mohan Ram S/o Shri Papu Ram, R/o Village-Bada Kotecha,
Police Station-Mathaniya, District-Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 23/2026
Farzana W/o Imran Khan, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 06, Aradki Road, Near Shanimandir, Nohar Tehsil
Nohar District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (4 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
Imran Khan S/o Zakir Hussain, Aged About 36 Years, Resident
Ofward No. 24, Shitala Bazar, Rajgarh Tehsil Rajgarh District
Churu.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 163/2022
Shobha Kunwar W/o Shri Shailendra Singh, Aged About 30
Years, D/o Shri Puran Singh Deora, R/o Village Viroli Post
Sanwar Via Veerwara, Pindwara, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Parabat Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Rawali Pol, Bagol, Distt. Pali (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Mathur for Mr. Akshat
Verma (in TA No.260/2024)
Mr. Sawai Singh (in TA No.127/2025)
Mr. Hardik Gautam (in TA
No.175/2025)
Mr. Deepak Chandak (in TA
No.187/2025)
Mr. Dilip Singh Baghela (in TA
No.252/2025)
Mr. A.D. Ujjwal (in TA No.262/2025)
Mr. R.C. Joshi (in TA No.283/2025)
Mr. Naresh Singh for Mr. Rakesh Arora
(in TA Nos.329/2025 & 332/2025)
Mr. Rahul Bishnoi for Mr. Jaidev Singh
(in TA No.23/2026)
Mr. Rajesh Shah (in TA No.163/2022)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Dadhich (in TA No.127/2025)
Mr. Rajpal Singh Rathore for Mr. Jog
Singh Bhati (in TA No.175/2025)
Ms. Mitali Vaishnav for Mr. Jitendra
Ojha (in TA No.187/2025)
Ms. Ranjana Singh (in TA
No.252/2025)
Mr. Manvendra Bhati (in TA
No.283/2025)
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta (in TA
No.329/2025)
Mr. Akash Goyal & Mr. Vikram Singh
Bhati (in TA No.332/2025)
Mr. Virendra Acharya (in TA
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (5 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
No.23/2026)
Mr. Kapil Purohit(in TA No.163/2022)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/03/2026
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 under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955/Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 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 the present petitions, service upon the respondents
stand duly complete. However, despite completion of service, none
has appeared on behalf of the respondents in CTA No. 260/24 &
262/25.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (6 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
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 9/13(A)/24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955/Sections 12 & 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005/Section 125 Cr.P.C/Section 144 BNSS/Offences
under Indian Penal Code, at the place where she is presently
residing. It is urged that, despite the 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.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (7 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
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 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
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (8 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
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.”
11. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10
SCC 480 :
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (9 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]“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. Further, with regard to appearance through video
conferencing is concerned, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of
P. Prashanti Vs. P.V. Nandakumar, Transfer Petition (Civil)
No. 1281/2024 (decided on 06.01.2025) observed as under:
“3. Considering the fact that the petitioner-wife has
two minor children, a boy and a girl to look after and
that she is residing at Gurugram, Haryana, she has
immense difficulty in attending court proceedings at
Visakhapatnam, it would be expedient in the ends of(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (10 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]justice to transfer the subject-case as asked for by
the petitioner-wife.
4. The Transfer Petition stands allowed accordingly.
5. The Court where proceedings are pending shall
transfer the records to the transferee Court promptly
and without any delay.
6. Liberty is granted to the respondent to appear
through video conferencing, in view of his medical
condition, until and unless his physical presence is
absolutely necessary.”
14. 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 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.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (11 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this
section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try
it.”
15. 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.
16. 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.
Accordingly, all the present transfer applications are allowed for
the reasons analysed in the preceding paras.
17. 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 to
Application (Family Court/ the case is which the
Number & Trial Court) pending case is
Title transferred
1. CTA 260/2024 Case No. Special Family Court
59/2024 (Rishi Judge, Family No.1,
(Smt. Anjul
Sharma Vs. Smt. Court, Udaipur
Sharma Vs.
Anjul Sharma) Chittorgarh
Rishi Sharma)
2. CTA 127/2025 Case Additional Family Court
No.134/2024 District No.4, Jaipur
(Pankti @ Rama
(Rajveer @ Judge, Metropolitan
Vs. Rajveer @
Marutinandan Ratangarh,
Marutinandan)
Vs. Pankti @ District Churu
Rama)(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (12 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
3. CTA 175/2025 Case No. Family Court Additional
277/2021 No.02, District Judge
(Smt. Bhavya
(Dushyant Singh Jodhpur No.1, Phalodi
@ Rinku
Vs. Smt.
Kanwar Vs.
Bhavya)
Dhushyam
Singh)
4. CTA 252/2025 Civil Misc. Case Family Court Additional
No.05/2025 No.02, District
(Smt. Priyanka
(Yashvardhan Jodhpur Judge,
Kanwar Vs.
Singh Vs. Smt. Gangapur,
Yashvardhan)
Priyanka Bhilwara
Kanwar)
5. CTA 262/2025 Civil Case No. Additional Family Court,
160/2025 District Judge Pali
(Smt. Divya
(Kailash Sharma No.1, Barmer
Sharma Vs.
Vs. Divya
Kailash
Sharma)
Sharma)
6. CTA 283/2025 Case No. Additional Family Court,
117/2025 District Pali
(Smt. Anita Vs.
(Suresh Judge, Sojat
Suresh
Choudhary Vs.
Choudhary)
Anita)
7. CTA 329/2025 Application No. Family Court, Additional
(Smt. Saroj 222/2025 Tonk District
Kumari Teli Vs. (Vishal Sahu Vs. Judge,
Vishal Sahu) Smt. Saroj Shahpura,
Kumar Teli) District
Bhilwara
8. CTA 332/2025 Family Misc Case Family Court Additional
(Smt. Sanju @ No. 890/2025 No.1, District
Sundari Vs. (Old No. Jodhpur Judge,
Mohan Ram) 903/2025) Metro Phalodi
(Mohan Ram vs.
Sanju @
Sundari)
9. CTA 23/2026 Case No. Civil Judge Civil Judge
(Farzana Vs. 51/2025 (Imran Rajgarh, Nohar,
Imran Khan) Khan Vs. District Churu District
Farzana) Hanumangar
h
10. CTA 163/2022 Civil Original Family Court, Family Court,
(Smt. Shobha Case No. Bali Sirohi
Kunwar Vs. Shri 72/2021
Shailendra (Shailendra
Singh) Singh Vs.
Shobha Kunwar)
11. CTA 187/2025 Civil Misc. Case Family Court, Family Court
(Smt. Sapna No. 80/2025 Pali No.2,
Jain Vs. Shri (Kamlesh Kumar Jodhpur
Kamlesh Vs. Smt. Sapana
Kumar) Jain)(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14460] (13 of 13) [CTA-260/2024 & Ors.]
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith to
all the transferor as well as transferee Courts.
22. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
32 to 35, 37 to 39, 41 to 43, 112-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 06:39:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
