Order

1. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer for transfer of Civil Case No.252/2025 (Nawaz Khan Vs. Smt. Shabbo Banu @Shabana) under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before Family Court, Merta.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife is presently residing with her father at Chittorgarh and would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Merta. It is submitted that the petitioner having no independent source of income, would face additional financial constraints in travelling such a distance repeatedly.

4. Counsel further submits that maintenance proceedings are also pending between the parties at Chittorgarh, and it has therefore been prayed that the pending application at Merta be transferred to Family Court, Chittorgarh.

5. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

6. 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.

7. With respect to the plea of financial constraints, the petitioner-wife having no independent source of income, and further, old/ailing parents under care, it has been observed in several decisions that compelling a woman with limited means to travel long distances on each date of hearing would result in undue hardship. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; (2016 INSC 504) held 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, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M. J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the 2 Page 3 respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.”

8. In view of the submissions made and in view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-wife having no independent source of income, would be at serious hardship if compelled to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Merta. The present transfer application hence, deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Civil Case No.252/2025 (Nawaz Khan Vs. Smt. Shabbo Banu @Shabana) pending before Family Court, Merta is dire