IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1056 of 2025 ANUPAMA RAJE Versus MAHIPAL SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

WITH MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1059 of 2025 ANUPAMA RAJE Versus MAHIPAL SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Abhilash Kumar Dey - Advocate for the respondent no.4.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1060 of 2025 ANUPAMA RAJE AND OTHERS Versus SUNITA TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shubham Rai with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

ORDER As similar questions of law and facts are involved in M.C.C.No.1056/2025, M.C.C.No.1059/2025 and M.C.C.No.1060/2025, they are being decided by this common order.

2. These applications have been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 filed by the respondents and pending before the court of VII Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhopal, and XIX Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhopal, respectively to District Court Nowgaon, Chhattarpur.

3. It is the case of the applicant that she got married to Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar, s/o the respondent on 7.2.2017 and one son Adhiraj was born out of the said wedlock on 10.11.2018. The applicant's husband passed away on 17.8.2024. After the demise, the respondents started harassing the applicant mentally and torturing her due to which she started living separately at her parental house at Nowgaon along with her minor son. The respondents filed Civil Suit M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 against the applicant seeking succession certificate of the estate of the applicant's husband, provident fund and gratuity amount and LIC amount, which are pending before civil court Bhopal.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is residing at Chhattarpur and has to travel 331 kms. which takes around 8 hours, which is causing enormous mental, physical and financial hardship and suffering to the applicant. It is further submitted that two cases are already pending before District Court, Nowgaon, in which respondents are appearing, hence prayer is made to transfer M.J.C. SUC No.208/2024, M.J.C. SUC No.209/2024 and R.C.S.A.No.1166/2024 from Bhopal to Nowgaon.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application.

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

7. 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 compa