Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Upasana Jain vs Sh. Nikhilesh Tayal … on 12 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:11782]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 205/2025
Mamta Kumari W/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Shri
Ramswaroop, R/o Ward No. 40, Laxmi Nagar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Ghanshyam S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No. 05, RCP Colony, Norangdesar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, (Raj.)
----Respondent
and
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 215/2025
Smt. Shweta Sharma W/o Shri Anuj Bhaskar, Aged About 35
Years, D/o Shri Tusliram Sharma R/o B-6, Gandhi Colony,
Pawanpuri, Bikaner, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Anuj Bhaskar S/o Shri Jayant Bhaskar, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 309, Aayojna Sky, Krishi Anusadhan Nagar, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 230/2025
Smt. Upasana Jain W/o Shri Nikhilesh Tayal, Aged About 42
Years, D/o Shri Padam Ji Resident Of 2/230 Tiwari Ka Kuan,
Darzi Pada, Munshi Bazar, Alwar(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Nikhilesh Tayal S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Tayal, R/o 70,
Nakoda Complex, Hiranmagari, Sector No.4, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 309/2025
Minaxi D/o Murarilal, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Hemant
Prakash, Resident Of Ward No. 27 Nohar, Tehsil Nohar District
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (2 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Prakash Bhanbhairu S/o Shyamsunder, Resident of
Ward No. 32 Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA
No.205/25)
Mr. Mukul Krishna Vyas (in TA
No.215/25)
Ms. Shruthi Rathi for
Mr. Anuj Sahlot (in TA No.230/25)
Mr. G.R. Bhari (in TA No.309/25)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar for
Mr. Ravinder Kumar (in TA
No.205/25)
Mr. Ankit Bhaskar (in TA No.215/25)
Mr. R.S. Mankad (in TA No.230/25)
with Ms. Priti Gehlot
Mr. Ravi Panwar (in TA No.309/25)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
12/03/2026
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
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 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (3 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
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 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.
5. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted
that the petitioner-wife has already instituted proceedings against
her husband under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005/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.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (4 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
6. Counsel for the respondents does not refute the above facts.
However, in one of the petitions (in S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No.
230/2025), in alternate, Counsel submitted that the respondent
be permitted to appear through virtual mode whenever his
physical presence is not required for any specific purpose.
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.
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
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (5 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
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
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.
...
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (6 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
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 :
“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,(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (7 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]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. So far as the plea of respondent to appear through Video
Conferencing is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
P. Prashanti Vs. P.V. Nandakumar, Transfer Petition (Civil)
No. 1281/2024 (decided on 06.01.2025) while dealing with a
similar circumstance, held 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
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (8 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
(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.
(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.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (9 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
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. Civil Case Court where Court where
Transfer Number the case is the case is
No.
Application (Family pending transferred
Number & Court/Trial
Title Court)
1. CTA Case No. Family Court, Court of
205/2025 181/2025 Hanumangarh Additional
(Ghanshyam District &
(Mamta
Vs. Mamta Sessions
Kumari Vs.
Kumari) Judge, Nohar
Ghanshyam)
2. CTA Case Family Court Family Court
215/2025 No.314/2025 No.04, Jaipur No.1, Bikaner
(CIS No. Metropolitan
(Smt. Shweta
1366/2025) First
Sharma Vs.
(Anuj
Anuj
Bhaskar Vs.
Bhaskar)
Smt. Shweta
Tiwari)
3. CTA Case Family Court Family Court
230/2025 No.207/2025 No.01, No.1, Alwar
(Sh. Nikhilesh Udaipur
(Smt.
Tayal Vs.
Upasana Jain
Smt. Upasana
Vs. Sh.
Jain)
Nikhilesh
Tayal)
4. CTA Case Addl. District Addl. District
309/2025 No.90/2020 & Sessions & Sessions
(Hemant Judge No.2, Judge, Nohar,
(Minaxi Vs.
Prakash Rajgarh, Hanumangarh
Hemant
Bhanbhairu Churu
Prakash
Vs. Minaxi)
Bhanbhairu)
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 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11782] (10 of 10) [CTA-205/2025]
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, as the present order is passed in
presence of both the Counsels.
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
24, 25, 26, 27-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:59:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:36:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
