[2026:RJ-JD:20213]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 241/2024 Monika Yadav W/o Manish Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, D/o Shri Mohan Dev, R/o House No. 16, Extension-3, Shanker Colony, Sri Ganganagar. ----Petitioner Versus Manish Yadav S/o Late Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, R/o Modern Market Chautina Kuan, Bikaner. Presently R/o A-8, Second Phase, Vrindavan Enclave, Jaipur Raod, Bikaner ----Respondent and S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 314/2025 Smt. Deepika Alias Deepu D/o Krishnagopal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Near Old Sbbj Bank, Bagdi Nafar,tehsil Sojat , Dist.

Pali ----Petitioner Versus Shri Jhankar Sanjay Alias Chandrashekhar S/o Chandrashekhar, R/o Lalwaniya Ka Baas Sadar Bazar Siwana Barmer ----Respondent S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 38/2026 Smt. Shilpa Goswami Alias Seema Goswami D/o Lt Sh Ratanpuri, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kheda Kot Mataji,near Ramsnehi Hospital, Tehsil District Bhilwara Raj.presently R/o 140, Devriya Balaji Marg, Sanjay Colony,bhilwara, Tehsil District-Bhilwara Raj.

----Petitioner Versus Kishan Puri S/o Shri Rameshwar Puri, R/o Jheelwara, Tehsil Gadhbor, District Rajsamand.presently R/o Royal Colony, Aamet, Tehsil Aamet,district Rajasamand Raj.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mrinal Khatri for Mr. S.K. Verma (in TA No.241/2024) Mr. Naresh Singh (in TA No.38/2026)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Acharya (in TA No.241/2024)

Mr. Nikhil Ajmera (in TA No.38/2026)

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

28/04/2026

1. As all these transfer petitions arise out of similar circumstances and involve common questions of law, they are being decided by this common order.

2. All the petitions have been preferred by the petitioner–wife seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by the respondent– husband under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner–wife is presently residing/working.

3. The petitioners in the respective applications have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the various proceedings pending before different Courts be transferred to the place of their residence/workplace. Although the factual matrix in each petition varies, the grounds raised by the Petitioner wives are substantially common and relate to the hardships faced by them in attending proceedings at distant forums.

4. In all the present petitions, service upon the respondents stand duly complete. However, despite completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent in CTA No.314/25.

5. In some of the petitions, it has been urged that the petitioner-wife, being a woman with minor child/children solely under her care, faces grave difficulty in travelling long distances, particularly in the absence of any family member to accompany her, rendering such travel with minors practically impossible. In some matters, the petitioner-wife has asserted that she is financially dependent upon her parents, lacking any independent source of income.

6. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted that the petitioner–wife has already instituted proceedings against her husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005/Section 125 Cr.P.C/Section 144 BNSS/Offences under Indian Penal Code, at the place where she is presently residing. It is urged that, despite the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent–husband has instituted a separate case in another district/city/town only with the intent to cause harassment. In these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult and practically impossible for her to attend the proceedings before the Court chosen by the husband.

7. Heard the Counsels.

8. 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.