Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prachi Vaidhya vs Shri Sumesh Vaidhya on 9 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226
1 MCC-202-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 202 of 2025
PRACHI VAIDHYA
Versus
SHRI SUMESH VAIDHYA
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate through Video Conferencing
with Smt.Priti Singh - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Sahani, learned counsel with Ms. Neelam Kumar Griyam -
Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of RCS HM No.1014/2024 pending before the Court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, to the Family Court, Bhopal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of the applicant has been solemized with the respondent husband on 1.5.2011. The applicant is a homemaker, whereas respondent is an Advocate. Out of the said wedlock two children are born. The applicant resides in Bhopal with her mother, brother and sister-in-law. She is not financially independent and not well educated and unemployed. The respondent has filed the divorce case, which is pending before the Family Court, Jabalpur, which is approximately Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 2 MCC-202-2025 314 kms. away from Bhopal and travelling to Jabalpur for court proceedings would cause great physical and financial hardship. The respondent has subjected the applicant to threats and harassment during their marriage. The applicant fears for her safety in Jabalpur as she lacks family support in the city. To butress his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of Apex court in the case of Ruchi Rawat Vs. Principal Judge, Family court Etah & Anr., 2022 Supreme (SC) 1882 and submits that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is generally considered while deciding on the transfer of a case taken into account the economic soundness of both the parties, their social strata and their circumstances.
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the aforesaid contentions by way of reply to the petition and submits that the respondent is the only earning member in his family and is also responsible for the care of his aged parents who are dependent upon him. Besides that the respondent is also keeping both the minor daughters as a devoted single parent. It is further submitted that despite being legally married and the mother of two daughters, the applicant willfully engaged in an illicit physical relationship with another man for which an FIR was also lodged by the applicant at Police Station Barela, Jabalpur, vide Crime No.708/2022 for the offence under section 376, 376(2)(n) IPC. It is further submitted that criminal trial of aforesaid FIR is already in progress in S.T.No.151/2023, before the Eighth Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and the petitioner is attending the same at Jabalpur. It is further submitted that the daughters are presently well settled in their school and home environment at Jabalpur and, therefore, prayed that transfer Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 3 MCC-202-2025 application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. Counsel further submits that the respondent undertakes to bear the travel expenses of the applicant to Jabalpur on each and every date of hearing and prays that it is not a fit case to interfere only on the ground of convenience to the lady. To butress his contention counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of apex court in the case of Delma Lubna Coelho Vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes, (2023) 18 SCC 447 (para 18 to 24), Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 (para 18), order of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina Vishwakarma Vs. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, 2023 SCC Online MP 1148 (para 12), Malti Shakyawar Vs. Mukesh Shakyawar, 2019 SCC Online MP 1433, (para 10), Sujata Vs. Abhishek Kulhare, 2019 SCC Online MP 6795 (para 7 & 8), Seema Vs. Anil Nayak, 2019 SCC Online MP 5611 (para 5 and 6), and Pooja Sharma Vs. Rakesh, 2019 SCC Online MP 5182.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of record it is evident that the applicant has lodged an FIR against an accused at Police Station Barela, Jabalpur, which was registered vide Crime No.708/2022 for the offence under section 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC. In the FIR it was alleged by the applicant that on the false promise to marry her, the accused has established sexual relations with her several times. It is also apparent that the criminal trial of the case culminated from the aforesaid FIR vide S.T.No.151/2023 is in progress and pending before the court of 8th Sessions Judge, Jabalpur and the applicant is regularly attending the court proceedings.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 4 MCC-202-2025
6. The Hon. Apex court in the case of Delma Lubna Coelho (supra) has held as under :-
"18. A number of transfer petitions are filed in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. This Court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies. In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das [Anindita Das v. Srijit Das , (2006) 9 SCC 197] , this Court observed that may be this leniency was being misused by women. Hence, each and every case has to be considered on its own merits.
20. Considering the status of the parties and the fact that it is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of case filed by the husband from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra, in our view no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra. The wife is a permanent resident of Canada. She must be travelling abroad regularly. As is evident from the observations in the Mediation Report dated 8-2-2023 submitted by Justice S.J. Vazifdar, the petitioner was in Canada throughout the mediation process and attended the proceedings online. There is no child born from the wedlock to be taken care of. Both the parties are well educated and engaged in their own jobs and professions. She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the hearing of the case and can also seek exemption from appearance whenever required."
7. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina Vishwakarma (supra) has held as under :-
"14. A perusal of the aforesaid reflect that in the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of inconvenience or hardship inasmuch as, recently the petitioner herself is appearing in the Court at Anuppur in the other cases and recently on 11.04.2023, the petitioner has appeared in a case which is registered against the respondent under Section 498A of I.P.C. The counsel for respondent in the present case has also expressed that he is willing to bear the expenses which are required for appearance of the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/husband.
15. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to transfer the case No. RCS HM No. 40/19 from the Court of First Additional District Judge, Kotma, Anuppur District to District Jabalpur and accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malti Shakyawar Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 5 MCC-202-2025 (supra) has held as under :-
"10. In the present case, the respondent has filed the application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. He is required to prove his case by way of evidence. If the proceedings are transferred from Biaora Rajgarh to Berasiya then, he will have to bring all his witnesses to the Berasiya, therefore, entire proceeding on the basis of apprehension of the petitioner that she may face problem in future while attending the proceedings at Biaora cannot be transferred.
11. Parties are not required to attained each and every date of the proceedings his/her lawyer can attain the proceedings. The presence of parties are required in matrimonial cases only at the stage of conciliation and the evidence. The rest of the proceedings can be attended by their counsel. Hence, at this stage, I do not find any special reason for transfer of the RCS No. 57/2018, from Biaora Rajgarh to Berasiya at Bhopal."
9. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sujata (supra) has held as under :-
"8. The said judgment has been relied by this Court in the case of Sangeeta Bhojak v. Rajkumar Bhojak reported in (2017) 3 MP LJ 565, wherein it has been held that the convenience and the distance alone is not the criteria for showing leniency in favour of the applicant wife.
9. In the present case also except for showing inconvenience of travelling alone from Damoh to Jabalpur, the applicant wife has not shown any other inconvenience.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case for transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from Family Court, Jabalpur to Damoh. Accordingly, the MCC is dismissed."
(emphasis supplied).
10. Similarly, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pooja Sharma (supra) has held as under :-
"8. This Court in the matters of Smt. Pratibha Mishra v. Mukesh Mishra, vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in MCC No. 510/2009, Anamika Pandey v. Shrihar Pandey vide order dated 27.08.2015 passed in MCC No. 1449/2014, Deepa Kuttapan v. Anil Rajan vide order dated 12.01.2007 passed in MCC No. 1536/2006 and Smt. Aditi Chouhan v. Deepak Chouhan vide order dated 14.03.2016 passed in MCC No. 83/2016 has dismissed the similar transfer applications.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 6 MCC-202-2025
9. This Court in the matter of Deepa Kuttapan v. Anil Rajan reported in 2007 (2) MPLJ 377 which permits the applicant to file an application for exemption on certain dates for sufficient cause for non appearance. Needless to say that the applicant is not required to appear before the Family Court on each and every date and is required to appear only on the concerned dates when the personal presence is required. Counsel for the respondent has already stated before this Court that the respondent will be paying the travelling as well as the lodging and boarding expenses for the applicant and one accompanying person as and when she is required to travel from Ratlam to Indore.
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the present, case considering the fact that applicant is attending the trial in aforesaid S.T. in Jabalpur coupled with the fact that case of the respondent husband is based on allegations which can be proved on the basis of evidence of criminal case which is under trial in Jabalpur and the fact that the respondent is nourishing two minor daughters and is ready to bear the travel expenses of the applicant on each and every hearing of the divorce case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and of this court wherein it is held that convenience of wife is not the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided, viz. through Video Conferencing so also, this court vide interim order dated 5.3.2025 has granted liberty to the applicant to participate in the Family Court proceedings through video conferencing, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere only on the ground of convenience of the applicant. However, the applicant is permitted to appear in the court proceedings through Video Conferencing unless otherwise directed by the court. However, the court below is directed to ascertain and order payment of expenses which are Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2226 7 MCC-202-2025 required to be paid by the respondent/husband to the applicant/wife for securing her presence on the scheduled date of hearing.
12. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:21:50 AM