The Supreme Court of India has allowed a transfer petition filed by a wife, directing the transfer of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights case instituted by her husband from Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, to Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, observed that the petitioner-wife had no independent means of income and was permanently residing at her parental home.
The legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the divorce proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Ujjain should be transferred to Bhilwara, where the petitioner-wife resides. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing her lack of financial support to travel and the pendency of other litigations in her home district.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Honey, approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of Case No. RCS/HM/0000067 of 2025, titled “Yogesh Versus Smt. Honey”. This case was filed by the respondent-husband, Yogesh, for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and was pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Court, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioner sought to have the matter transferred to the Family Court in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, citing her inability to contest the case in Ujjain effectively.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that she is permanently residing at her parental home in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The primary ground for the transfer request was financial hardship. It was argued that the petitioner has “no independent means of income or support to travel to Ujjain to attend the proceedings initiated by the Respondent and is entirely dependent on her family.”
Furthermore, the counsel highlighted that there are already four other cases pending adjudication in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, between the parties.
The respondent-husband did not appear before the Court to contest the petition. The Court noted, “Though service of the respondent is complete, however no one has put in appearance on his behalf.”
Court’s Analysis
Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the Bench found merit in the plea. The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention regarding her residence and financial dependence.
In its order, the Bench observed:
“In our opinion, a case is made out for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent – husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the petitioner-wife claims to be permanently residing at her parental home at Bhilwara, Rajasthan, with no independent means of income or support to travel to Ujjain to attend the proceedings initiated by the Respondent and is entirely dependent, on her family.”
The Court also took into consideration the convenience of the parties regarding multiple litigations, noting that “four more cases are pending at Bhilwara, Rajasthan.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2666 of 2025. The Court ordered that Case No. RCS/HM/0000067 of 2025 pending before the Family Court in Ujjain be transferred to the Family Court in Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
The Court further directed the transferee Court to either hear the matter itself or assign it to another court of competent jurisdiction. It was mandated that the records be sent promptly to the transferee Court.
Additionally, the Bench issued directions to facilitate the proceedings through technology where feasible:
“In case video conferencing facilities are available in the transferee Court, the parties may be permitted to appear through video conferencing on non-effective dates of hearings.”
The Court also suggested administrative efficiency to minimize the burden on the parties:
“Wherever possible the cases may be assigned to one court and effort can be made to fix these cases on a single day so that the parties are not required to attend court on multiple dates.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Honey vs. Yogesh
- Case No: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2666/2025
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv., Mr. Aman Jha, AOR, Mr. Kshitij Mayank, Adv., Mr. Srijan Sahu, Adv.
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Srishti Mishra, AOR, Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Adv.
