Order

1. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer for transfer of Family Main Case No.223/2021 (Gheesa Ram Vs. Smt. Parul) under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before Additional District Judge, Taranagar, District Churu.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh and would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Taranagar, District Churu. It is submitted that there is no family member available to accompany her and therefore, she would face serious hardship in undertaking such travel on each date of hearing.

4. Further, the petitioner being unemployed, has no independent source of income, on account of which she would face additional financial constraints in travelling such distance repeatedly.

5. Counsel further submits that criminal proceedings are already pending between the parties at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh and therefore the pending case at Churu be transferred to the Court at Bhadra.

6. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

7. It is a well-settled proposition of law 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) (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.

8. So far as the plea of long-distance travel and the resultant inconvenience to the petitioner-wife is concerned, Bombay High Court, recently, while allowing the transfer petition in the case of Archana Dattatray Jagtap vs Dattatray Chandev Jagtap, (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3920), held as under:

“6. Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and the facts of the present case, where the distance between Malshiras, District Solapur, and Belapur is around 300 kms, in my view, it is inconvenient for the wife to travel 300 kilometres to attend the hearing and then return the same day, travelling 300 kms. To do so, she would have to stay overnight at Belapur to attend the proceedings filed by the husband. She has also filed three proceedings before the Court of Malshiras, District Solapur. Hence, I am convinced that the transfer application deserves to be allowed.”

9. In view of the submissions made and in view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner having no independent source of income, would be at serious hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Churu. Further, it is evident that the respondent is even otherwise required to attend the criminal proceedings at Bhadra. The present transfer application hence, deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Family Main Case No.223/2021 (Gheesa Ram Vs. Smt. Parul) pending before the Additional District Judge, Taranagar, District Churu is directed to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

10. Co