[2025:RJ-JD:32855]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 29/2025 Smt. Jyoti Alias Yamini W/o Gourav Khatri, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Shri Vasudev Ji Khatri, R/o Nai Brahmpuri, Samdari, Dist. Balotra, Presently R/o Khatriyon Ka Nichala Vas, Ward No. 30, Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus Gourav Khatri S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Ji Khatri, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nai Brahmpuri, Samdari, Dist. Balotra.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Shrimali Ms. Adwaita Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

25/07/2025

1. The present transfer application has been preferred by the petitioner-Wife seeking transfer of Civil Original Case No.79/2024 titled as “Gaurav vs. Jyoti @ Yamini” filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) by the respondent-Husband before the Family Court, Balotra to Family Court, Barmer.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 10.05.2022 as per Hindu rituals and customs. However, after some time there were instances of discord between the couple. The petitioner was subjected to cruelty and mistreatment in the matrimonial house. As such, the petitioner was constrained to reside at her parental home and since then she is residing at her parental home at Barmer.

3. The petitioner-Wife in her petition has submitted that she is residing at Barmer with her old parents and is financially dependent on them as she is unemployed. The fact that she has to time and again attend court proceedings before the Family Court, Balotra which is far away from Barmer, without any support, is causing her great hardship and inconvenience.

4. In addition to this, the petitioner-wife has also filed an FIR bearing No.111/2024 under Section 498A, 406 & 323 IPC at Police Station Barmer against the respondent-husband and his family members and in pursuance thereto the proceedings are also pending as on date before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. As a counter, the respondent-Husband filed the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 before Family Court, Balotra.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the present transfer application and in support of which he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Civil Transfer Application No. 99/2016 in the case of “Smt. Swati Sharma vs. Vinit Sharma” decided on 19.05.2017 and Civil Transfer Application No.10/2008 in the case of “Tilotamma vs. Anoop Kumar” decided on

18.08.2008.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It transpires that the petitioner-Wife, not having any source of income of her own, definitely would be facing financial hardship and inconvenience in travelling repeatedly to attend the court proceedings at Balotra.

8. It is well settled legal position that while going into the merits of a transfer application, 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 and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships. In such type of matters, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

9. The Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha; AIR 2022 SC 4318 allowed the appeal filed by the wife for transfer of petition from Vellore to Chennai on the ground that she had to travel a long distance all by herself and also that other proceedings between the parties were already pending at Chennai. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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 co