The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disposed of a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to transfer a divorce case from Gadarwara to Narmadapuram. Justice Deepak Khot, while refraining from transferring the case solely on the ground of the wife’s convenience, directed that she be permitted to appear before the Family Court via video conferencing for most proceedings. The Court further directed that for the recording of evidence, the wife must appear physically, with travel expenses borne by the husband.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Ranjana Chouksey (alias Shrim Chouksey), filed a petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking the transfer of a divorce case (RCSHM No. 39/2025) pending before the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Narmadapuram.
The petitioner’s marriage to the respondent, Vaibhav Rai, was solemnized on April 19, 2024, in Gadarwara. A child was born out of the wedlock on February 19, 2025. Following a matrimonial dispute, the respondent-husband filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Gadarwara.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant-wife, Shri Sarvesh Kumar Jaiswal, argued that the applicant is currently residing at her parental home in Narmadapuram and is a homemaker fully dependent on her family. It was submitted that she lacks sufficient means to travel to Gadarwara for every hearing, given the distance of approximately 150 kilometers. The counsel highlighted that the applicant has an infant child and traveling alone causes her “great hardship.” It was asserted that “the applicant being a lady is also entitled to contest her case at a place where the same is convenient to her.”
Per contra, Shri Prashant Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the respondent-husband, opposed the transfer. He argued that the divorce petition is based on grounds of cruelty, which are required to be proved at the matrimonial home in Gadarwara where the incidents allegedly occurred. He submitted that mere convenience of the applicant should not be the sole relevant factor for transfer. The respondent expressed willingness to pay for the applicant’s commutation expenses. Additionally, the respondent pointed out that the matter is at the “advance stage of the evidence of the applicant” and alleged that she had not been marking her presence “under the garb of the pendency of this application.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice Deepak Khot considered the rival submissions and referred to established legal precedents regarding transfer petitions. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006), observing that leniency shown to women in transfer petitions had been “misused.” The Court quoted the Apex Court’s observation: “This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit… The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit… Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.”
The High Court also relied on the decision in Preeti Sharma vs. Manjit Sharma (2005), reiterating that “Merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel… At the highest she can be paid expenses for travel and stay.”
Based on these precedents, Justice Khot observed:
“From the above enunciation of law, it is clear that now only the convenience is not the reasonable factor which can determine the case of transfer. If the matter is to be proved by the witnesses of the place where the matter is being prosecuted then the other side can suitably be adjusted by making payment of commutation.”
Decision
Taking into account the totality of the facts, the High Court disposed of the application with specific directions to balance the interests of both parties.
The Court directed:
- The applicant “may appear before the Family Court, Gardarwara, District Narsinghpur through video conferencing.”
- However, the applicant “shall attend the Court at Gardarwara for her examination on the date fixed by the Court below.”
- The expenses for her physical appearance for evidence “would be borne by the respondent.”
- The Family Court was directed to fix a date for the applicant’s examination and accordingly direct the respondent to make payment of the expenses.
- For all other dates and adjudication, the applicant is “at liberty to appear before the Court through video conferencing and counsel who is appearing at Gardarwara.”
The petition was allowed and disposed of with these directions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Ranjana Chouksey Alias Shrim Chouksey Vs. Vaibhav Rai
- Case Number: Misc. Civil Case No. 2598 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Deepak Khot
- Counsel for Petitioner: Shri Sarvesh Kumar Jaiswal
- Counsel for Respondent: Shri Prashant Kumar Tiwari
