[2026:RJ-JD:13431]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 27/2025 Anju W/o Sukhvir Punia, Aged About 39 Years, D/o Dhokalram R/o Ward No. 30, Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.

Hanumangarh,raj.

----Petitioner Versus Sukhvir Punia S/o Sundar Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Suratpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu,raj.

----Respondent Connected with S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 220/2025 Mrs. Shailaja Alias Shalu Kanwar W/o Kuldeep Singh, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Dharm Singh Charan Resident Of Kotada, Police Station Kalandari District Sirohi Raj.

----Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh S/o Baldev Singh Charan, 28 Shriji Vihar Brabhamno Ka Gudha Amberi Bhuvana District Udaipur ----Respondent S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 240/2025 Munni Soni W/o Deepak Soni, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 72, Vinayak Vihar D, Rawan Gate, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Deepak Soni S/o Ramesh Chandra Soni, Resident Of Plot No. 72, Ramnagar, Front Of Vidhya Public School, Ramramsa Traders Gali, Banar Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 318/2025 Farjana D/o Haji Mohammad, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of

42, Ghosi Colony, bhati Market Ke Pass, Pali, District Pali, Raj..

----Petitioner Versus Abdul Rauf S/o Mohammad Rafik, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Karan Nagar, Gali No. 1, Seoganj,tehsil Seoganj, District Sirohi, Raj..

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Jani for Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA No.27/25)

Mr. Bajrang Singh (in TA No.220/25)

Mr. Arshdeep Jattana for Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta (in TA No.240/25)

Mr. S.K. Joshi (in TA No.318/25) For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026

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. In all the present petitions, service upon the respondents stand duly completed. However, despite completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. 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/ Specific Relief Act, 1963 to the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner–wife is presently residing/working.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted that the petitioner–wife has already instituted proceedings against her husband under Sections 125, 144 Cr.P.C./ Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 / 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 practical