IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1381 of 2024

SMT. AKANSHA MISHRA @ AKANSHA RELE

Versus

ANKIT RELE

Appearance:

Shri Deependra Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sharik Akeel Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER

The applicant/wife has filed the present petition under Section 24 of

C.P.C. making a prayer for transfer of RCSHM No.143/2023 which is pending before Principal Judge Family Court, Panna to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior, wherein an application under Section 9 of

Hindu Marriage Act filed by the present applicant is already pending.

2. The application for transfer of the case has been filed on the ground that applicant's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27.11.2021. Subsequently, matrimonial dispute has arisen between the parties, which has led to filing of an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent husband in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Panna whereas the applicant-wife, who is resident of Gwalior, has also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act at Gwalior which is

pending adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife has submitted that the applicant is residing at her parental home and is not having any source of livelihood. The father of the applicant had expired on 30.03.2023 and is dependent on her brother. It is further submitted that the distance between Gwalior and Panna is approximately 300 Kms. It is submitted that to attend the Court at Panna, she is required to travel alone. It is further submitted that the applicant being a lady is also entitled to contest her case at a place where the same is convenient to her. Thus, it is submitted that the case filed by the respondent husband in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Panna be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior.

4 . To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the orders passed in M.C.C. No.3725/2024 (Pooja Rathore vs. Tushar) and M.C.C. No.3843/2024 (Smt. Neelam vs. Vinod Singh) to state that in similar facts and circumstances of the case, the co-ordinate Benches of this Court had directed for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband to the place where Section 9 application has been filed by the wife. But in the present case in hand, it is submitted that Section 9 application under Hindu Marriage Act has been filed after filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, it is not a case where it can be said that the applicant has tried to restore the relationship prior to filing of the divorce application and thus, the facts are distinguishable and not similar to the present case in hand.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006)

9 SCC 197 has held in paragraphs 3 to 7 as under :-

"3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.

4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.

5. Except for stating th