[2026:RJ-JD:9470]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 286/2025 Preksha Jain D/o Shri Vardhaman Jain, Aged About 33 Years, Resident of Parmeshwar Nagar, Near Mukta Maheshwari Bhawan, Tehsil Beawar, District Beawar- Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Vikas Jain S/o Mahesh Jain, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Gopalganj, Lohar Gali Corner, Opposite Kabutar Khana, Pratapgarh – Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms Shaambhavi Bhansali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati for Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/02/2026

1. The present transfer application has been filed praying for the transfer of Case No. 122/2025 (Vikas Jain vs Smt. Preksha Jain) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before the Family Court, Pratapgarh to the Court Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits that she is presently residing at her parental home at Beawar along with her minor daughter and has no independent source of income. Further, there is no person available to accompany her to Pratapgarh on every date. Furthermore, the distance between Beawar and Pratapgarh being more than 250 kms, it is a more than 6 hrs one way journey by bus. Hence, it is practically impossible for her to travel such a long distance in a single day.

3. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

4. From a perusal of the documents as placed on record, it is evident that one application under Section 23 of The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the petitioner-wife at Beawar which remains pending. Further, application under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as a criminal complaint as lodged by her also remain pending investigation and adjudication at Beawar.

5. Regarding the pendency of multiple proceedings between the parties, the Courts have consistently taken note of such circumstances while considering transfer pleas. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap (2016 INSC 504), held as under:

“3. According to the Appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult for her mother to accompany the Appellant for her travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases-one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third Under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the civil side for restitution.

…

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J. Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.”

6. Further, it is a well-settled proposition that in matrimonial matters generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering the plea of transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha; (2022 INSC

1310), it was held as under:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to