[2026:RJ-JD:11782]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 205/2025 Mamta Kumari W/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Ward No. 40, Laxmi Nagar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist.

Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Ghanshyam S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, RCP Colony, Norangdesar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, (Raj.)

----Respondent and S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 215/2025 Smt. Shweta Sharma W/o Shri Anuj Bhaskar, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Shri Tusliram Sharma R/o B-6, Gandhi Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Anuj Bhaskar S/o Shri Jayant Bhaskar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 309, Aayojna Sky, Krishi Anusadhan Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 230/2025 Smt. Upasana Jain W/o Shri Nikhilesh Tayal, Aged About 42 Years, D/o Shri Padam Ji Resident Of 2/230 Tiwari Ka Kuan, Darzi Pada, Munshi Bazar, Alwar(Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus Sh. Nikhilesh Tayal S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Tayal, R/o 70, Nakoda Complex, Hiranmagari, Sector No.4, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 309/2025 Minaxi D/o Murarilal, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Hemant Prakash, Resident Of Ward No. 27 Nohar, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus Hemant Prakash Bhanbhairu S/o Shyamsunder, Resident of Ward No. 32 Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA No.205/25)

Mr. Mukul Krishna Vyas (in TA No.215/25)

Ms. Shruthi Rathi for Mr. Anuj Sahlot (in TA No.230/25)

Mr. G.R. Bhari (in TA No.309/25)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar for Mr. Ravinder Kumar (in TA No.205/25)

Mr. Ankit Bhaskar (in TA No.215/25)

Mr. R.S. Mankad (in TA No.230/25)

with Ms. Priti Gehlot Mr. Ravi Panwar (in TA No.309/25)

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/03/2026

1. As all these transfer applications arise out of similar circumstances and involve common questions of law, they are being decided by this common order.

2. All the petitions have been preferred by the petitioner–wife seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by the respondent– husband under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner–wife is presently residing/working.

3. The petitioners in the respective applications have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the various proceedings pending before different Courts be transferred to the place of their residence/workplace. Although the factual matrix in each petition varies, the grounds raised by the Petitioner wives are substantially common and relate to the hardships faced by them in attending proceedings at distant forums.

4. In some of the petitions, it has been urged that the petitioner-wife, being a woman with minor child/children solely under her care, faces grave difficulty in travelling long distances, particularly in the absence of any family member to accompany her, rendering such travel with minors practically impossible. In some matters, the petitioner-wife has asserted that she is financially dependent upon her parents, lacking any independent source of income. In some, it has been averred that they reside with their ailing or aged parents, who require constant supervision.

5. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted that the petitioner–wife has already instituted proceedings against her husband under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005/Offences under Indian Penal Code, at the place where she is presently residing. It is urged that, despite the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent–husband has instituted a separate case in another district/city/town only with the intent to cause harassment. In these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult and practically impossible for her to attend the proceedings before the Court chosen by the husband.

6. Counsel for the respondents does