Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sonal Bhandari vs Rahul Mantri (2026:Rj-Jd:7540) on 11 February, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:11669]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 115/2024
Jaishree W/o Dheeraj Kumar, aged about 28 years, D/o Sita
Ram, R/o Agrawal Colony, Opp. Agrasen Vidhya Mandir, Balotra,
Tehsil Balotra, District Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
Dheeraj Kumar S/o Shyam Sunder, R/o Near Mahaveer Colony,
Girls School Sayala, Tehsil Sayala, District Jalore.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 155/2024
Smt. Rekha Yadav W/o Sunny Yadav, Aged about 37 years, D/o
Shri Phoolchand R/o House No.21, Street No.3, Baba Deep
Singh Colony, Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunny Yadav S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Yadav, aged about 37 years,
R/o House No.67, Kalyan Nagar-B, Ramsinghpura Bass,
Shikarpur Road, Sanganer Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 40/2025
Smt. Urmila Chaba W/o Rajendra Choudhary, Aged About 31
years, D/o Mahendra Chaba R/o Village Subhdand, Tehsil Merta
City, Post Ren, District Nagaur, At present At Maliyo Ka Mohalla,
Badli, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Choudhary S/o Ram Ratan Choudhary, R/o Plot No.7
Gali No.2, Vijay Nagar, New Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi,
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (2 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No.48/2025
Smt. Sonal Bhandari W/o Rahul Mantri, Aged about 26 years,
D/o Ajay Bhandari, R/o 3-E-39, R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rahul Mantri S/o Ram Gopal Mantri, Aged about 26 years, R/o
Near Bareth Ji Ki Haweli, Shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 206/2025
Sushila W/o Shri Arvind Kumar, aged about 37 years, D/o Shri
Pawan Kumar Indoriya, R/o Surya Cinema Hall Ke Piche,
Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Prakash Chandra, Aged about 42 years,
House No.10, Satya Colony, Gali No.02, Tehsil and District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No.258/2025
Sangeeta W/o Hemant Kumar, aged about 35 years, 4-T Sector
Near Central Academy School Opposite Shiv Mandir Kudi
Bhagtasni Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Shankhla S/o Manoj Sankhla, aged about 37 years,
Roop Rajat Township Pal Road Jodhpur, Presently Resided
Opposite Third Railway Station Crossing Balotra.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 280/2025
Sabnam Bano W/o Murad Kha, Aged about 29 years, D/o Moh.
Hussain R/o Behind Krishi Mandi Near Madina Masjid Teli Basti,
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (3 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
Maderna Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Murad Kha S/o Chhotu Kha, Aged About 31 years, R/o Jato Ka
Bass Artiyakallan, At present Mundwa Tehsil Mundwa District
Nagaur Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 312/2025
Smt. Bhumika W/o Pankaj, aged about 30 years, D/o Shri
Himmat Sen, R/o 158, Marudhar Nagar, Near Tagour Nagar, Pali
At present Residing At 134, Patrakar Colony, Sector 7, New
Power House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj S/o Sh Bhimraj, R/o Ambika Nagari, Sanderao Road,
Falna, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.). At present F-13, Vijay
Apartment, Phase-3, GB Road Near Gala Super Market,
Bhaghbil, Thane, Maharashtra-400615
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh (in TA
No.115/2024)
Mr. Mudit Nagpal (in TA No.155/2025)
Mr. B.S. Mertiya (in TA No.40/2025)
Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan (in TA
No.48/2025)
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag (in TA
No.206/2025)
Mr. Rakesh Gupta (in TA
No.258/2025)
Mr. Chirag Kalani (in TA No.280/2025)
Mr. Raj Kumar Gehlot with Ms. Ankita
Gehlot & Ms. Bhumika (in TA
No.312/2025)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrinal Khatri for Mr. S.K. Verma
(in TA No.155/2024)
Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore for
Mr. Rakesh Arora (in TA No.312/2025)
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (4 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/02/2026
1. As all these transfer applications 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 herself/respondent-
husband under various provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/The
Family Courts Act, 1984 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 respondents in CTA No. 280/25, 258/25,
206/25, 48/25, 40/25 and 115/24.
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
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (5 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
has asserted that she is financially dependent upon her parents, lacking
any independent source of income. In some, it has been averred that
they reside with their ailing or aged parents, who require constant
supervision.
6. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted that the
petitioner-wife has already instituted proceedings against her husband
under Section 125 Cr.P.C./Section 144 BNSS/Section 9 or 13 of The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/Section 12 of The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005/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 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
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (6 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
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."
9. So far as the ground of the minor child/children being in the care
and custody of the petitioner-wife is concerned, the Courts have
consistently held that inconvenience is more on the part of the woman
and she cannot be expected to travel long distances either while
accompanying the minor or while leaving them in the care of others, to
attend the proceedings regularly. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 held as under:
"2. The wife has a child, approximately three years old,
with her in Bombay. She avers that she has no source of
income and no one to travel with her from Bombay to
Delhi. In the circumstances, she is unable to satisfactorily
defend the divorce petition. It is contended on behalf of
the husband that the transfer petition should be
dismissed, and that he will pay for the wife's transport
between Bombay and Delhi along with an escort,
whenever required, as also pay for the travel of her
witnesses in the matrimonial proceedings.
3. This misses two points. The first relevant circumstance
is that there is a very small child with the wife in Bombay
and the second is that the wife does not have anybody
who can conveniently accompany her to Delhi. Apart from
this, as is shown by the counter, there are already
proceedings in Bombay which the husband has to defend.
We think, in the circumstances, that the transfer petition
should be allowed."
10. With respect to the plea of financial constraints, the petitioner-
wife having no independent source of income, and further, old/ailing
parents under care, it has been observed in several decisions that
compelling a woman with limited means to travel long distances on
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11669] (7 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
each date of hearing would result in undue hardship. Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar
Vishwanath Jagtap, (2016 INSC 504) held as under:-
"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. No doubt, the said evidence can be recorded on appearance of the petitioner either physically or by virtual mode but keeping in mind the over all situation and the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to transfer the subject-case as asked for by the petitioner-wife so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner-wife."
11. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480 :
"The petitioner is a resident of Durgapur, District Burdwan, West Bengal. She states that she is a distressed woman without any financial resources (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM) (Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11669] (8 of 11) [CTA-115/2024] and that with the meagre income which she gets by way of maintenance, it is not possible for her to travel from Durgapur to Delhi to prosecute the case. She also submits that there is nobody to accompany her to Delhi. The above fact is not traversed in the counter affidavit. Having regard to the circumstances, we think that it would be appropriate to order transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi."
12. So far as the plea of long-distance travel and the resultant inconvenience to the petitioner-wife is concerned, Bombay High Court, recently, while allowing the transfer petition in the case of Archana Dattatray Jagtap vs Dattatray Chandev Jagtap, (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3920), held as under:
"6. Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and the facts of the present case, where the distance between Malshiras, District Solapur, and Belapur is around 300 kms, in my view, it is inconvenient for the wife to travel 300 kilometres to attend the hearing and then return the same day, travelling 300 kms. To do so, she would have to stay overnight at Belapur to attend the proceedings filed by the husband. She has also filed three proceedings before the Court of Malshiras, District Solapur. Hence, I am convinced that the transfer application deserves to be allowed."
13. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-
"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal -
(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage,-
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM) (Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11669] (9 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and
(i) try or dispose of the same; or
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.
(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section,-
(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;
(b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.
(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.
(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it."
14. This Court observes that, in the ordinary course, transfer petitions instituted before this Court often remain pending for considerable periods, primarily on account of the other party evading service. In several matters, interim protection granted by this Court results in the matrimonial proceedings before the concerned Court remaining stalled for years.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM) (Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11669] (10 of 11) [CTA-115/2024]
15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in order to secure the ends of justice as well as to ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings, this Court considers it appropriate to exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, all the present transfer applications are allowed for the reasons analysed in the preceding paras.
16. Consequently, in each of the petitions noted hereinabove, the Court from which the case is being transferred and the Court to which it stands transferred are indicated as under:
S.No. Civil Transfer Case Number Court where Court where Application (Family the case is the case is Number & Title Court/Trial pending transferred Court)
1. CTA 115/2024 Case No. Family Court, Family Court, 109/2023 Jalore Balotra (Jaishree Vs. (Dheeraj Kumar Dheeraj Kumar) Vs. Jaishree)
2. CTA 155/2024 Case Family Court Family Court No.792/2022 No.02, Jaipur No.1, Sri (Smt. Rekha Yadav (Sunny Yadav Metropolitan Ganganagar Vs. Sunny Yadav) Vs, Rekha Yadav)
3. CTA 40/2025 Case Family Court Additional No.306/2024 No.03, District (Smt. Urmila Chaba (Rajendra Jodhpur Judge, No.1, Vs. Rajendra Choudhary Vs. Nagaur.
Choudhary) Smt. Urmila Chaba)
4. CTA 48/2025 Civil Case Family Court, Family Court No.57/2023 Shahpura No.1, (Smt. Sonal (Rahul Mantri Bhilwara Bhandari Vs. Rahul Vs. Smt. Sonal Mantri) Bhandari)
5. CTA 206/2025 Civil Case Family Court Additional No.444/2024 No.01, Sri District & (Sushila Vs. Arvind (Sushila Vs. Ganganagar Sessions Kumar) Arvind) Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu
6. CTA 258/2025 Civil Case Family Court, Family Court No.98/2025 Balotra No.1, Jodhpur (Sangeeta Vs. (Hemant Hemant Shankhla) Sankhla Vs. (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM) (Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11669] (11 of 11) [CTA-115/2024] Sangeeta)
7. CTA 280/2025 Civil Original Addl. District Family Court Case & Sessions No.1, Jodhpur (Sabnam Bano Vs. No.67/2025 Judge, No.1, Murad Kha) (Murad Kha Vs. Nagaur Sabnam Bano)
8. CTA 312/2025 Case Addl. District Family Court (Smt. Bhumika Vs. No.90/2025 & Sessions No.1, Jodhpur Pankaj) (Pankaj Vs. Judge, Bali, Smt. Bhumika) District Pali
17. The transferor Court is directed to transmit entire record of the transferred matter to the transferee Court within a period of two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the present order while fixing the next date for appearance of both the parties before the transferee Court.
18. Both the parties shall remain present before the transferee Court on the date as fixed by the transferor Court and the transferee Court shall not be under an obligation to issue fresh notices to any of the parties. Only in cases where the other party remained unserved or is proceeded ex-parte, the transferee Court shall be under an obligation to issue fresh notices to the respondent and act further in accordance with law.
19. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith to all the transferor as well as transferee Courts.
20. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J Mak-/2,3,6,7,11, 13,14 & 16 (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 01:45:42 PM) (Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)