Madhya Pradesh High Court
Stm. Aarti Singh Kushwah vs Ajay Singh Kushwah on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713
1 MCC-1196-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23 rd OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1196 of 2025
STM. AARTI SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
AJAY SINGH KUSHWAH
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant through video
conferencing. Thr.V.C. appearing on behalf of Rahul Singh Kushwah.
Shri Varun Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This application has been filed by the applicant/wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of proceedings of Case No.RCS HM279/2024 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas to the Family Court, Gwalior.
2. The contention of the applicant is that earlier she had filed three cases against the respondent, first case was under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, which was registered as MJCR No.849/2022. She further submits that she has also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was registered as HMA Case No.1280/2024. The said case was filed in the month of September, 2024 by her. She also submits that she filed a complaint in Mahila Police Thana, Padav, Gwalior under Section 498-A of IPC. Pursuant to which criminal case was registered in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior as Case No.169/2022. As such she submits that there are three cases registered by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713 2 MCC-1196-2025 applicant against the respondent at Gwalior. She further submits that after registration of these three cases the respondent has instituted divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas on 9.11.2024.
2.1 She submits that she is financially weak and is not able to bear/afford the expenses of travel from Gwalior to Dewas for attending the proceedings before the learned Family Court. She also submits that she has an apprehension that something untoward will happen at the instance of respondent, if she comes to Dewas. In support of her submissions she has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Anjali Ashok Sadwani Vs. Ashok Sadwani, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 188 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the circumstances when the applicant-wife had no one in the family to escort her during her journey from Mumbai to Indore, the matrimonial dispute, transferred from Indore to Mumbai.
3. Per contra, the respondent states in his reply that the present transfer application has been filed with a bad intention as there is no substance in the application and not even a single just and valid reason has been assigned for transferring the case from Dewas to Gwalior. It is submitted that mere convenience of the wife cannot be a good ground for transferring the case. He submits that Family members of the applicant have previously physically assaulted the respondent. He submits that on 2.12.2021 father of the respondent namely; Mahesh Singh Kushwah had submitted an application to the Supdt.of Police, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh regarding verbal abuse and physical assault by family members of the applicant. He also submits that applicant and her family members were persistently harassed and subjected to physical torture by repeated death Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713 3 MCC-1196-2025 threats to the respondent. In this regard non-cognizable report has been lodged by father of the respondent on 6.12.2021, which has been brought on record as Annexure NA/2.
3.1 He also states that while attending the Court proceedings on 27.1.2025 the applicant reached Dewas accompanied with two persons and instead of going to Court, she straight away came to the house of the respondent and started abusing the respondent and his entire family. The father of the respondent called the Police and only after reaching the Police, applicant left the premises. In this regard an application was submitted by him on 27.1.2025 at P.S., Kotwali, Dewas, which was brought on record as Annexure NA/3. The respondent further submits that applicant is B.Tech graduate in the Information Technology and hails from a well to do family. He submits that father of the applicant is a Policeman. He also submits that applicant is not required to attend Court proceedings on each and every date. Her personal presence before the learned Family Court, Dewas is only necessary at the stages of mediation and recording of evidence. The first stage i.e. mediation has already been concluded, thus she is not required for attending the same. As regards further proceedings, in para 14 of his reply the respondent submits that the applicant is having an option to join the Court proceedings through video conferencing as permitted under the prevailing legal provisions and judicial guidelines. For this purpose he relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150 . The respondent also placed reliance on the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 and in the case of Malti Shakyawar Vs. Mukesh Shkyawar, reported in 2019 SCC Online MP 1433 as well as recent decision of this Court in M.C.C.No.235/2025 ( Reena Bundela Vs. Raghvendra Bundela) decided on 29.1.2025.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713 4 MCC-1196-2025
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The only reason, which has been assigned by the applicant in her entire application for transfer of proceedings is mentioned in para 7. She states that her financial position is poor and she is not able to bear/afford the expenses of travel from Dewas to Gwalior. apart from this no other reason has been mentioned in the application for transferring the case. Even the inconvenience, which has been alleged is only the financial constrain and nothing further. The reliance has been placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sadwani (supra) is of no consequence because in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect that there is no one in family to escort the wife from Mumbai to Indore, thus the case was transferred, but in the instant case this was not even pleaded by the wife in the entire application that there is no one in the family to accompany her to Dewas. On the contrary, the respondent submits in his reply that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 27.1.2025 she was accompanied by two persons, who created ruckus at the house of the respondent. Further the respondent in para 14 of the reply refers to the facility of video conferencing. Thus, it appears that he is agreeable if the applicant attends the Court proceedings through video conferencing, but this aspect is not to be decided in these proceedings. It is for the applicant to request for and the learned Family Court to consider the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das (supra) has held in para 3, 4 and 5 as under :-
"3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713 5 MCC-1196-2025
4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grand parents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every visit when the Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi.
5. Thus, the ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the Court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out."
6. Recently, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malti Shakyawar (supra), while referring to the Supreme Court decision in para 8 and 9, has observed in para 10 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."
7. Also in the case of Reena Bundela (supra) coordinate Bench of this Court in para 5 and 6 has held as under :-
"05. The distance from Indore to Dewas is hardly 40 kilometers. From the documents on record, it is observed that the application for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by the non-applicant / husband at Dewas, where video conferencing facility is available. In view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), the applicant may contest the matter through video conferencing mode from Indore itself. The proceedings for divorce which have been instituted by the applicant at Indore and the proceedings which have been instituted by the non-applicant at Dewas for restitution of conjugal rights are different and it cannot be said that both of them are required to be tried together in the same Court for the sake of convenience and also to avoid rival findings by two different Courts. Both cases are based on different allegations and the issues to be decided in both of them are different. They cannot be consolidated and tried together.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15713 6 MCC-1196-2025
06. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no need to transfer the application for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the non-applicant from Dewas to Indore and it is directed that the applicant shall contest the aforesaid matter pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, District Dewas through video conferencing from Indore itself without going to Dewas."
8. Considering the above aspects of the case and the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court there are no valid grounds for transferring the present case from Dewas to Gwalior. It is seen that there are several disputes between the litigating parties and there are repeated allegations of physical violence against each other. In these circumstances it would not be fit and proper to order transfer of the proceedings to Gwalior.
9. As regards the financial constrains, it is for the applicant to move appropriate application before the learned Family Court so as to establish her precarious position and the Court in case of filing of such application would deal with the same and pass appropriate orders on the same. Thus, it cannot be a ground in itself to transfer the proceedings from one Court to another. Thus, in the fitness of things this Court does not deem it fit to transfer the proceedings from Family Court, Dewas to Family Court, Gwalior.
10. Consequently, this M.C.C.fails and is hereby rejected.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE patil Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 6/27/2025 6:49:46 PM