[2026:RJ-JD:13412]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 330/2025 Smt. Bhawna Shekhawat D/o Pratap Singh Ji Shekhawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No 286, Gali No 12/14, New BJS Colony, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus Narendra Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Opposite Excise Office, Nagaur Colony, Railway Station Road, Jalore ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Kumar Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devki Nandan Vyas HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026

1. The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner wife with a prayer for transfer of application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) filed by the respondent husband before the Family Court, Jalore to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing serious hardship in attending the proceedings at Jalore as she is under an obligation to take care of her minor son aged six years who is suffering from diabetes and is under regular medication.

3. Heard the Counsels.

4. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial matters generally, it is 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) (decided on

18.07.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.

5. Dealing with the ground of minor child/children being in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 observed as under:

“2. The wife has a child, approximately three years old, with her in Bombay. She avers that she has no source of income and no one to travel with her from Bombay to Delhi. In the circumstances, she is unable to satisfactorily defend the divorce petition. It is contended on behalf of the husband that the transfer petition should be dismissed, and that he will pay for the wife's transport between Bombay and Delhi along with an escort, whenever required, as also pay for the travel of her witnesses in the matrimonial proceedings.

3. This misses two points. The first relevant circumstance is that there is a very small child with the wife in Bombay and the second is that the wife does not have anybody who can conveniently accompany her to Delhi. Apart from this, as is shown by the counter, there are already proceedings in Bombay which the husband has to defend. We think, in the circumstances, that the transfer petition should be allowed.”

6. Coming on to the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is having a minor child under her care who is suffering from diabetes and is under regular medication. In that circumstance, if the petitioner is forced to attend the regular proceedings at Jalore, it would be of a more hardship to the minor child than to the mother. Not only the health of the child would be affected, but also his medication would have a negative effect in both the cases – if the mother accompanies him to Jalore on each date or she leaves him at Jodhpur under the care of her relatives. By all means, the petitione