[2026:RJ-JD:13411]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 179/2024

1. Smt. Priyanka Galav W/o Chandra Prakash Pancholi, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Badri Narayan, R/o, Gangrar, Tehsil, Gangrar, District-Chittorgarh, Presently Residing At, Kailash Puri Colony, Salpura Road, Chabra Tehsil- Chabra, District, Bara, (Raj.)

2. Kum Navya D/o Chandra Prakash Pancholi, Aged About 12 Years, Presently Residing At Chabra, Tehsil, Chabra, District-Bara, (Raj), Through Mother, Priyanka Galav Petitioner No. 1

3. Shri Shivam S/o Chandra Prakash Pancholi, Aged About 8 Years, Presently Residing At Chabra, Tehsil, Chabra, District-Bara (Raj)), Through Mother, Priyanka Galav Petitioner No. 1 ----Petitioners Versus Chandra Prakash Pancholi S/o Laxman Pancholi, Aged About 44 Years, Occupation Light Ant Decoration, R/o Aazad Mohalla, Near Girls School, Gangrar, Tehsil, Gangrar District, Chittorgarh, (Raj)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026

1. The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner wife on her behalf and on behalf of the minor children with a prayer for transfer of application under Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 r/w Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as filed by the respondent husband before the Family Court, Chittorgarh to the Court of Additional District Judge No.1 Chabra, District Baran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Transfer Application (S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 51/2022) for transfer of a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent, was earlier preferred before this Court which stood allowed vide order dated 23.04.2024 and the petition was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Chhabra, District Baran. Counsel submits that present application be also transferred to the same Court.

3. Despite service none appears for the respondent.

4. Heard the Counsel.

5. 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 life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

6. 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) 14 SCC 356, observed 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