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. 1003 of 2025 ANUPAMA RAJE Versus SUNITA TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Rahul Diwakar - Advocate for the respondent no.1.

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

ORDER The present application has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of R.C.S.A.No.298/2024 filed by the respondent and pending before the court of II Civil Judge Junior Division, Sehore to District Court Nowgaon.

2. It is the case of the applicant that she got married to Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar, s/o the respondents 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 Nowgoan along with her minor son. The respondent filed Civil Suit No.RCS A No.298/2024 against the applicant seeking declaration and permanent injunction which is pending before II Civil Judge Junior Division, Sehore in respect of the property in question.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is residing at Chhattarpur and has to travel 331 kms. to reach Bhopal 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 Civil Suit No.RCS A No.298/2024 from Sehore to Nowgaon.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out.

6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We, however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.

7. The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, money for a 2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. The respondent shall also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion in a 3-star hotel. The trial court shall ensure that the petitioner has been paid the travel expenses in advance and that the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasion when she is