Rajasthan High Court: Rameshwar Vyas, J. allowed the transfer petition and transferred the matter to the Family Court, Ajmer.

 The instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (i.e.” the Act of 1955”) read with Section 7 of the Family Court Act and Section 151 of CPC, by the non-applicant –husband before Family Court, Ajmer.

Counsel for the applicant Mr Vivek Goyal submitted that when the applicant-wife was coming to the Court, the non-applicant-husband stopped her way with some mischievous persons and threatened her. It was further submitted that the instant transfer petition was filed on fictitious grounds just to harass and humiliate the applicant-wife. The applicant wife is helpless to attend and contest the matter in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur as she is having 8 years old daughter, who is residing with her. On the above grounds, the present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-wife.

Counsel for the respondent Mr Rajneesh Gupta submitted that the applicant-wife is playing pressure tactics on the non-applicant. The non-applicant is ready to bear the expenses of her travelling as the Court at Jaipur only has jurisdiction to hear and decide the application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, which has yet not been replied by the applicant- wife. The minor daughter is presently pursuing her study at Jaipur, the fees of which is being borne by the non-applicant. The non-applicant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the transfer application filed by the applicant-wife.

The Court observed that that the transfer application is required to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case, hence, the judgments cited by the applicant cannot be made basis as a precedent to infer that the balance of convenience always lies in favour of the wife, other relevant factors have to be taken into consideration while deciding the transfer application.

The Court further observed that it would be in the interest of both the parties that their matrimonial dispute is settled expeditiously at a suitable place in a healthy atmosphere so that future life of the parties as also welfare of the minor daughter is not adversely affected. In the present case, the place of litigation should not be made an issue by the non-applicant because the applicant-wife is a lady and having no source of income for maintaining herself and her daughter.”

The Court thus held “the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant-wife in comparison to inconvenience caused to the non applicant- husband in case the proceedings are transferred from Jaipur to Ajmer.”[Anuradha Haldhani v. Sameer Haldhani, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 779, decided on 13-08-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.