Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrimati Bhoomika Rai vs Ashish Bhargava on 19 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33716
1 MCC-40-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 40 of 2025
SHRIMATI BHOOMIKA RAI
Versus
ASHISH BHARGAVA
Appearance:
Applicant by Shri Krishna Rohada, Advocate through Video
Conferencing and Shri Harshad Bahrani, Advocate.
None for respondent.
ORDER
This application, under section 24 of CPC, has been filed for transfer of RCSHM No. 281/2024 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior to Family Court, Bhopal.
2. Earlier this application was presented before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur. By order dated 28/1/2025, the Principal Bench directed for transfer of this application from Principal Bench of M.P. High Court to the Gwalior Bench of M.P. High Court and, accordingly, it has been listed before this court.
3. It is the case of applicant that respondent has filed a petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. The applicant had lodged an FIR in Crime No. 360/2023 at police station Mahila Thana, Bhopal City for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-12-2025 15:03:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33716 2 MCC-40-2025 offences under sections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and under sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The father of applicant has suffered a paralytic stroke and there is nobody in the family of applicant except herself and her mother and it is the applicant only who is looking after her ailing father. Applicant has also filed an application under section 144 of the BNSS before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition filed by respondent under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior, to Family Court, Bhopal.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.
5. Paragraph F of the transfer petition reads as under:-
"F. That, applicant no. 1, daughter, father and mother are totally dependent upon father's pension. Moreover, earlier applicant was working in a software company but in 2022 father of the applicant met with paralysis disease and Brain Haemorrhage as well. Since, then she is the only one who is taking care of. Therefore, she is in trouble related to finance (due to medicinal support nothing remains), health (no one is there to take care of his ridden father). Though, applicant is not in a position to regular attend case pending before the family Court Gwalior Madhya Pradesh."
6. According to the applicant, applicant, as well as, mother are completely dependent upon their father's pension. Earlier, applicant was working in a software company but as father of applicant met with paralysis disease as well as brain hemorrhage in the year 2022, since then she is the only one who is taking care of him. Thus, it is clear that it is the case of the applicant that in the year 2022, her father had suffered a paralytic stroke and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-12-2025 15:03:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33716 3 MCC-40-2025 since then she is taking care of her father after leaving the job in the year 2022. If the FIR which has been lodged by applicant is considered, then it appears that she had leveled an allegation that she got married to the respondent on 11/12/2021. She was kept properly for a period of one month and thereafter the respondent and her in-laws started passing taunts that her father has not given anything. For the second time when she went to her matrimonial house on 5/2/2022, again taunts were passed and she was being treated with cruelty and, therefore, she came back to her parental home. Thus, if the FIR is considered then it appears that the applicant left her matrimonial house on account of cruelty meted out to her, whereas if paragraph F of the transfer petition is considered, then it is clear that she has claimed that since her father had suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2022, therefore, she came back to her parental home to look after him and in the meanwhile she had also left her job which she was doing in a software company. Whether the applicant is residing in her parental home on account of cruelty meted out to her or whether she is residing in her parental home on her own is a question to be decided by the trial Court, but for the purposes of this transfer petition, this Court is of considered opinion that the ground raised in paragraph F of the transfer petition has to be given preference.
7. There is another aspect to give preference to paragraph F. In paragraph F, it is alleged that her father had suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2022. Applicant has filed the medical prescriptions of her father, according to which her father who is aged about 64 years was having tremors in both hands. The MRI (Brain) report as well as EEG report have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-12-2025 15:03:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33716 4 MCC-40-2025 placed on record. Since this Court is not a medical expert, therefore, it took the services of the medical doctor posted in the dispensary of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, who after going through the record informed that there is nothing like paralysis in the prescription reports. Even the EEG is normal and certain diseases are age related diseases and there is no abnormality.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. If the father of applicant had suffered paralytic stroke in the year 2022, then she should have filed the prescriptions of the year 2022, but all the prescriptions which have been placed on record are of 2024 and that too of the later part of the year 2024. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any good ground for transfer of RCSHM No. 281/2024 from Family Court, Gwalior to Family Court, Bhopal.
10. Counsel for applicant was not in a position to narrate as to whether applicant is getting any maintenance amount from the respondent or not. Accordingly, it is directed that whenever applicant appears to attend the case before Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, then on an application filed by her, the trial Court shall award to and fro expenses for the applicant and one attender.
11. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant may be permitted to join the Court proceedings through video conferencing.
12. Considered the submission made by counsel for applicant.
13. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court, by taking a majority view, in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-12-2025 15:03:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33716 5 MCC-40-2025 the case of Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, (2018) 1 SCC 1 has held as under.
"58. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our conclusion as follows:
58.1. In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. 58.2. After the settlement fails and when a joint application is filed or both the parties file their respective consent memorandum for hearing of the case through videoconferencing before the Family Court concerned, it may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer.
58.3. After the settlement fails, if the Family Court feels it appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that videoconferencing will subserve the cause of justice, it may so direct. 58.4. In a transfer petition, videoconferencing cannot be directed.
58.5. Our directions shall apply prospectively. 58.6. The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam [Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam , (2017)4 SCC 150 :
(2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 394] is overruled to the aforesaid extent."
14. Therefore, it is directed that if any application is filed by applicant seeking permission to join the Court proceedings through video conferencing, then the said application shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with the directions given by Supreme Court in paragraph 58 in the case of Santhini (Supra).
15. With aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-12-2025 15:03:34