##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:18108]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 263/2025

Smt. Madhubala W/o Mr Ramratan Verma, Aged About 35 Years, Gav Garda Teshil Laxmangarh Sikar Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

Mr Ramratan S/o Mr Goverdhan Lal Verma, Aged About 35 Years, Rajiv Gandhi Colony Pal Link Road Jodhpur Raj.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Mathur Mr. Bhartendu Panwar

Mr. Nikhil Saran 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 Family Court Case No.888/2024 (Ramratan Vs. Smt. Madhubala) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before

Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Laxmangarh, Sikar and would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Jodhpur. It is submitted that the petitioner having no independent source of income, would face additional financial constraints in

travelling such a distance repeatedly on every court date.

(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 02:10:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:54:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18108] (2 of 4) [CTA-263/2025]

It has therefore been prayed that the pending application at

Family Court No.1, Jodhpur be transferred to the Court of

Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, Sikar. 4. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

5. 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.

6. 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 Jagtapvs. ShridharVishwanath Jagtap; (2016 INSC 504)held

as under:

(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 02:10:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:54:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18108] (3 of 4) [CTA-263/2025]

“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 as