##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:18107] 1 [CTA-151/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 151/2024

Smt. Isha Meel W/o Sh. Devendra Dhaka, Aged About 26 Years, D/o Sh. Bunti Ram Meel, R/o Stps Colony, Parbhat Nagar,

Rajiyasar Suratgarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) - 335804 ----Petitioner

Versus Devendra Dhaka S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Dhaka, Aged About 29

Years, R/o 73, Sri Ramalay Vatika, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Monal Chugh For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/04/2026

1. None appears for the respondent despite service and despite

power been filed on behalf of him.

2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer for transfer of Application No.09/2024 (Devendra Dhaka Vs. Smt. Isha Meel) under Section 13 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before

Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

3. The reply to the present petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent and it has been averred that the petitioner is employed as Software Developer with a firm at Jaipur and is working there. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner of her

residing at Suratgarh is incorrect.

(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 07:07:16 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:54:12 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18107] 2 [CTA-151/2024] 4. In counter to the reply, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby it has been averred that she had resigned from the employment at Jaipur in the month of January 2024 itself. A copy of the relieving letter of the said date

has been annexed as Annexure-8.

5. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, makes a specific statement that the petitioner, as of date, is not employed

anywhere and is residing with her parents at Suratgarh.

6. Counsel submits that the petitioner-wife would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Jaipur and further having no independent source of income, would face additional financial constraints in travelling such a distance

repeatedly on every court date.

7. It is also been averred that criminal proceedings are already pending between the parties at Suratgarh. It has therefore been prayed that the pending application at Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I be transferred to the Court of Additional District

Judge, Suratgarh.

8. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

9. 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,

(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 07:07:16 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:54:12 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18107] 3 [CTA-151/2024]

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 sub- sequent 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.

10. With respect to the plea regarding long-distance travel and the resultant inconvenience caused to the petitioner-wife, particularly in being compelled to undertake such travel on each date of hearing despite having limited means is concerned, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar J