IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 202 of 2025

PRACHI VAIDHYA

Versus

SHRI SUMESH VAIDHYA

Appearance:

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate through Video Conferencing

with Smt.Priti Singh - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sahani, learned counsel with Ms. Neelam Kumar Griyam -

Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed under section 24 of the Code of

Civil Procedure praying for transfer of RCS HM No.1014/2024 pending before the Court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur,

to the Family Court, Bhopal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of the

applicant has been solemized with the respondent husband on 1.5.2011. The applicant is a homemaker, whereas respondent is an Advocate. Out of the said wedlock two children are born. The applicant resides in Bhopal with her mother, brother and sister-in-law. She is not financially independent and not well educated and unemployed. The respondent has filed the divorce case, which is pending before the Family Court, Jabalpur, which is approximately

314 kms. away from Bhopal and travelling to Jabalpur for court proceedings would cause great physical and financial hardship. The respondent has subjected the applicant to threats and harassment during their marriage. The applicant fears for her safety in Jabalpur as she lacks family support in the city. To butress his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of Apex court in the case of Ruchi Rawat Vs. Principal Judge, Family court Etah & Anr., 2022 Supreme (SC) 1882 and submits that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is generally considered while deciding on the transfer of a case taken into account the economic soundness of both the parties, their social strata and their circumstances.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the aforesaid contentions by way of reply to the petition and submits that the respondent is the only earning member in his family and is also responsible for the care of his aged parents who are dependent upon him. Besides that the respondent is also keeping both the minor daughters as a devoted single parent. It is further submitted that despite being legally married and the mother of two daughters, the applicant willfully engaged in an illicit physical relationship with another man for which an FIR was also lodged by the applicant at Police Station Barela, Jabalpur, vide Crime No.708/2022 for the offence under section 376, 376(2)(n) IPC. It is further submitted that criminal trial of aforesaid FIR is already in progress in S.T.No.151/2023, before the Eighth Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and the petitioner is attending the same at Jabalpur. It is further submitted that the daughters are presently well settled in their school and home environment at Jabalpur and, therefore, prayed that transfer application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. Counsel further submits that the respondent undertakes to bear the travel expenses of the applicant to Jabalpur on each and every date of hearing and prays that it is not a fit case to interfere only on the ground of convenience to the lady. To butress his contention counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of apex court in the case of Delma Lubna Coelho Vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes, (2023) 18 SCC 447 (para 18 to 24), Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 (para 18), order of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina Vishwakarma Vs. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, 2023 SCC Online MP 1148 (para 12), Malti Shakyawar Vs. Mukesh Shakyawar, 2019 SCC Online MP 1433, (para 10), Sujata Vs. Abhishek Kulhare, 2019 SCC Online MP 6795 (para 7 & 8), Seema Vs. Anil Nayak, 2019 SCC Online MP 5611 (para 5 and 6), and Pooja Sharma Vs. Rakesh, 2019 SCC Online MP 5182.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties an