Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Neha Rao vs Arvind Singh Tejawat … on 29 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:20491]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 145/2024
Smt. Monika Vaishnav W/o Manish Vaishnav, Aged About 27
Years, D/o Govind Ram Vaishnav, R/o Beawar, Moti Nagar
Sendara Road, Tehsil Beawar, Dist. Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Manish S/o Narayan Lal Ji Vaishnav, R/o Pancham Nagar,
Ramdev Road, Tehsil And Dist. Pali.
----Respondent
Connected with
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 124/2025
Hemlata W/o Ritesh Vyas, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Outside
Jassusar Gate Nandu Maharaj Ki Gali Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
Ritesh Vyas S/o Purushottam Narayan Ji Vyas, R/o Madhuram
20E/11 Aadarsh Nagar Choupasni Housing Board Jodhpur
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 155/2025
Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Ravi Das, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Shri
Jagdish, At Present R/o E-106, Rameshwar Nagar, Phase - 1,
Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Ravi Das S/o Shri Kishan Das, R/o Aalasan District Jalore At
Present R/o Jyoti Mobile Zone Door Number 32-5, 30 Mareka
Street Near K.v.v. Swami Road Rajmandri District East
Godawari (Andhra Pradesh)
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 231/2025
Dr. Kanchan Bhati W/o Dr. Jitendra Singh Rajawat, Aged About
45 Years, Resident Of Village Rampur, Post Tiwari, District
Jodhpur, Currently Resident Of C 179 Shastri Nagar Jodhpur,
Office MDM Hospital Jodhpur, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Jitendra Singh Rajawat S/o Bhanwar Singh Rajawat, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 13 Prem Colony, Near
Airport, Tonk Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj).
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 334/2025
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (2 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
Smt. Neha Rao W/o Gopal Swaroop, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Indra Colony, Chomu,police Station Chomu, District
Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
Arvind Singh Tejawat S/o Ujjawal Singh Tejawat, Aged About
46 Years, R/o 37, Mansarovar Colony, Bedla Bhuwana Link
Road, Bedla, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati (in CTA No.145/24)
Mr. Virendra Acharya (in CTA
No.124/25)
Mr. Ashvini Kumar Swami (in CTA
No.155/25)
Mr. Vikram Choudhary (in CTA
No.231/25)
Mr. Sandeep Saruparia (in CTA
No.334/25)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Baghela (in CTA
No.231/25)
Mr. Arvind Singh Tejawat, respondent
present in person (in CTA No.334/25)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
29/04/2026
1. As all these transfer applications 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/Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 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
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (3 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
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 Nos.145/2024,
124/2025 & 155/2025.
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.
6. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted
that the petitioner-wife has already instituted proceedings against
her husband under Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 /
Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 / 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
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (4 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
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 the 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 Vs. Ajay Bahri, (2002)
10 SCC 136 held as under:
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (5 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
"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
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.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (6 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
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 :
“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,(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (7 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]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
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.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (8 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
(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.”
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:
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (9 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]S. Civil Case Court where Court where
Transfer Number the case is the case is to
No.
Application (Family pending be transferred
Number & Court/Trial
Title Court)
1. CTA Case No. Family Court, Additional
145/2024 48/2024 Pali, District Judge
(Manish Vs. No.1, Beawer
(Smt. Monika
Monika
Vaishnav Vs.
Vaishnav)
Manish)
2. CTA Case Family Court Family Court
124/2025 No.664/2024 No.1, Jodhpur No.3, Bikaner
(Ritesh Vyas
(Hemlata Vs.
Vs. Smt.
Ritesh Vyas)
Hemlata)
3. CTA Case Family Court, Family Court
155/2025 No.57/2025 Jalore No.1, Jodhpur
(Ravi Das Vs.
(Smt. Mamta
Smt. Mamta)
Vs. Ravi Das)
4. CTA Case Additional Family Court
231/2025 No.125/2025 District Judge No.2, Jodhpur
(Dr. Jitendra No.10,
(Dr. Kanchan
Singh Sanganer,
Bhati Vs. Dr.
Rajawat Vs. Jaipur
Jitendra
Dr. Kanchan Metropolitan –
Singh
Bhati) 1
Rajawat)
5. CTA Case Family Court Family Court
334/2025 No.489/2025 No.1, Udaipur, (Additional
(Arvind Singh District Judge
(Smt. Neha
Vs. Neha No.10), Jaipur
Rao Vs.
Rao) Metropolitan-2,
Arvind Singh
Headquarter
Tejawat)
Chomu
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
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20491] (10 of 10) [CTA-145/2024]
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
respondents 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
31 to 34 & 36-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 12:36:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 03:03:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)