[2025:RJ-JD:46316]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 137/2025 Jyoti Rathore W/o Tarun Dharu, Aged About 30 Years, D/o Madanlal Rathore, R/o Govindnagar, Rajsamand, Currently Residing At Behind Bhadesar Police Station, Harijan Basti, Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh. (Raj)

----Petitioner Versus Tarun Ghaaru S/o Girjashankar Dharu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o D-28 Govindnagar, Housing Board, Kakroli, District Rajsamand (Raj)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Babel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avin Chhangani Ms. Apeksha Chhangani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/10/2025

1. The present transfer petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Divorce Petition No.283/2023 titled as ‘Tarun Ghaaru Vs. Smt. Jyoti Rathore’ filed by the respondent – husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce between the parties which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand to learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings initiated by the respondent – husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a counter-blast FIR No.202/2023 lodged at Police Station Bhadesar by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members for the offences under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1960 and with a view to harass the petitioner – wife. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner – wife is presently residing at Bhadesar with her parents. The distance from Rajsamand to Nimbahera is more than 150 Kms and it would not be practically possible for the petitioner – wife to travel to Rajsamand on every date of hearing alone.

4. It was thus, prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner – wife that the case pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand may be transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41; Sarkar (Shome) Vs. Pradip Sarkar [Transfer Petition (Civil) No.622/2007 decided on 10.11.2008]; Manju Varma Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.8290/2002 decided on 17.11.2004] and Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 353 was pleased to hold that the Courts are required to give more weight and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed. Taking into consideration their convenience, the Court should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardship.

6. Section 24 of the CPC is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

"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 sult, 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 (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) re-transfer 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 d