The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has ordered the transfer of criminal and maintenance cases filed against a husband, citing the “mis-use” of the respondent-wife’s position as a practicing lawyer in the local court, which deprived the petitioner-husband of legal representation. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the inability to secure legal assistance due to influence on the local Bar Association compromises the fundamental principle of a fair trial.
The court transferred a criminal case from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, and a maintenance case from the Family Court, Sawai Madhopur, to equivalent courts in Jaipur Metropolitan.
Case Background
The petitioner-husband is facing two cases filed by his wife in Sawai Madhopur. The first is a criminal case (No. 2093/2023) under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, lodged via FIR No. 75/2023, for which a charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur.
The second is a proceeding (Case No. 185/2024) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, pending before the Family Court, Sawai Madhopur, in which an interim maintenance order of Rs. 15,000 per month was passed on June 30, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner sought the transfer of these cases, contending that his fundamental right to a fair trial was compromised. His counsel argued that the respondent-wife is a practising lawyer at Sawai Madhopur. She allegedly wrote a complaint to the President of the Bar Association, Sawai Madhopur, on June 10, 2025, against three advocates (Govind Prasad Gupta, Mukesh Bairwa, and Anees Mohammad) whom the petitioner had engaged to represent him.
The petitioner stated that the complaint sought disciplinary action and demanded that the lawyers be restrained from appearing on his behalf. Based on this, the Bar Association issued notices to the three lawyers on June 19, 2025, seeking their explanation. The petitioner argued that due to the respondent’s influence, no lawyer in Sawai Madhopur is now willing to provide him with legal assistance.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-wife opposed the transfer. It was submitted that the notice issued to the three lawyers on June 19, 2025, was withdrawn by the Bar Association’s office bearers on the very same day. The respondent argued that the petitioner, under the “garb of the interim order” staying the proceedings, was avoiding the payment of maintenance.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, found that the petitioner’s apprehension was justified. The court acknowledged the respondent’s claim that the notice was withdrawn, but stated: “Be that as it may, looking to the fact that the respondent is a practicing lawyer at Sawai Madhopur and in consideration that she has successfully influenced the Bar Association into taking action against the abovementioned lawyers, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has no hope of getting the opportunity of a fair trial before the Courts situated at Sawai Madhopur, in absence of adequate legal assistance and lawyers willing to represent the same.”
The judgment affirmed that legal assistance is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed, “it appears that the petitioner has been deprived from getting legal assistance and there is no hope or chance that the petitioner would get a fair opportunity of contesting a fair trial against him at Sawai Madhopur.”
The Court held that the circumstances compromised the core principles of a fair trial. “The inability of a litigant such as the petitioner to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by the Bar Association under the influence or creation of a hostile environment by the respondent, especially when she is a lawyer practicing in the same court, compromises the fundamental principle of fair trial,” the court ruled.
Justice Dhand cited the Supreme Court’s opinion in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, noting that “If an accused person, for any particular reason, is virtually deprived of this facility, an essential aid to fair trial fails… if in a certain court the whole Bar, for reasons of hostility or otherwise, refuses to defend an accused person… it may well be put forward as a ground which merits this Court’s attention.”
The High Court also referred to Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, which held that a fair trial “would necessarily involve creation of a neutral atmosphere where parties can participate freely” and must be held in an “atmosphere of judicial calm.”
Decision and Directions
The High Court strongly deprecated the respondent’s actions. “There is no question of inconvenience of the complainant-respondent… because she is mis-using her position of being lawyer before the trial court and not allowing any lawyer to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Such an act and conduct of the respondent and the local Bar Association is not appreciable and is liable to be condemned and deprecated.”
The court found the judgments cited by the respondent to be inapplicable “in the peculiar circumstances of the case created by none other than the respondent herself.”
Concluding that it was “just and proper” to transfer the cases, the court ordered:
- Criminal Case No. 2093/2023 (State vs. [Petitioner]) is transferred from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.
- Criminal Case No. 185/2024 ([Respondent] & Others vs. [Petitioner]) is transferred from the Family Court, Sawai Madhopur, to the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan.
The court clarified, however, that the petitioner must comply with the interim maintenance order dated June 30, 2025, and is directed to make regular payments and clear any arrears within three months.
Both criminal transfer petitions were accordingly disposed of.
