Ritesh Sharma v. Smt. Diya), under Section

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yash Padia, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. Proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act initiated at the instance of opposite party/ husband is pending in the Family Court, Ghaziabad.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 11.12.2023 and stayed the further proceeding of the Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act. The order dated 11.12.2023 is quoted as under: "1. It is argued that various cases filed by the applicant are pending in the District -Sambhal but insofar as the present case is concerned, the petition under Section 3(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the opposite party (husband) in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, in which notices have already been issued. It is argued that applicant is resident at Sambhal and the distance of Sambhal from 2 TACL No. 949 of 2023 Ghaziabad is about 150 kilometers, hence it is not possible for her to attend the trial of the case filed by the opposite party at Ghaziabad.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Issue notice to opposite party fixing 25.01.2024. Steps be taken within a week.

4. Counsel for the opposite party is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

5. List on 25.01.2024.

6. Till further proceedings of Matrimonial Case No. 1764 of 2023 (CNR No. UPGZ020037062023) (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya) under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, shall remain stayed."

5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.12.2023, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding between the parties are pending at District- Sambhal at Chandauis, as such, the proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from District- Ghaziabad to Family Court, District-Sambhal at Chandausi. He placed the averment made in paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that the proceeding of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/ husband should be transferred the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer made by the applicant to transfer the proceeding of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before Family Court, 3 TACL No. 949 of 2023 Ghaziabad.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under: "11. That, the distance from Ghaziabad to Sambhal is about. 150 Kilometers.

12. That, the applicant being a deserted lady is not able to attend the Court at Ghaziabad. The applicant is also not keeping good health herself on account of harassment by her husband.

13. That, the applicant is not making any allegation either against the Presiding Officer or the opposite party and is seeking transfer of the case only on the ground that attending the proceedings of divorce case pending at Ghaziabad is not convenient for her.

14. That, five cases, as stated above, are already going on in District - Sambhal at Chandausi which are being contested• by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party will have no problem if the case is transferred to Sambhal at Chandausi."

11. The perusal of the paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit as quoted above demonstrate that prayer of the applicant for transfer of proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi is genuine coupled with the fact that opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by applicant/ wife.

12. Apex Court in the case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Paragraph nos.1 to 7 of the judgement rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: "1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred. 4 TACL No. 949 of 2023

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.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant's mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent- husband.

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. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad is transferred to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi. The Family Court, Ghaziabad is directed to transmit the record of the case to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi forthwith. The Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi is directed to decide the aforementioned proceeding of Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 16, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yash Padia, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. Proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act initiated at the instance of opposite party/ husband is pending in the Family Court, Ghaziabad.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 11.12.2023 and stayed the further proceeding of the Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act. The order dated 11.12.2023 is quoted as under: "1. It is argued that various cases filed by the applicant are pending in the District -Sambhal but insofar as the present case is concerned, the petition under Section 3(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the opposite party (husband) in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, in which notices have already been issued. It is argued that applicant is resident at Sambhal and the distance of Sambhal from 2 TACL No. 949 of 2023 Ghaziabad is about 150 kilometers, hence it is not possible for her to attend the trial of the case filed by the opposite party at Ghaziabad.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Issue notice to opposite party fixing 25.01.2024. Steps be taken within a week.

4. Counsel for the opposite party is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

5. List on 25.01.2024.

6. Till further proceedings of Matrimonial Case No. 1764 of 2023 (CNR No. UPGZ020037062023) (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya) under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, shall remain stayed."

5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.12.2023, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding between the parties are pending at District- Sambhal at Chandauis, as such, the proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from District- Ghaziabad to Family Court, District-Sambhal at Chandausi. He placed the averment made in paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that the proceeding of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/ husband should be transferred the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer made by the applicant to transfer the proceeding of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before Family Court, 3 TACL No. 949 of 2023 Ghaziabad.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under: "11. That, the distance from Ghaziabad to Sambhal is about. 150 Kilometers.

12. That, the applicant being a deserted lady is not able to attend the Court at Ghaziabad. The applicant is also not keeping good health herself on account of harassment by her husband.

13. That, the applicant is not making any allegation either against the Presiding Officer or the opposite party and is seeking transfer of the case only on the ground that attending the proceedings of divorce case pending at Ghaziabad is not convenient for her.

14. That, five cases, as stated above, are already going on in District - Sambhal at Chandausi which are being contested• by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party will have no problem if the case is transferred to Sambhal at Chandausi."

11. The perusal of the paragraph nos.11 to 14 of the affidavit as quoted above demonstrate that prayer of the applicant for transfer of proceeding under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Ghaziabad to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi is genuine coupled with the fact that opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by applicant/ wife.

12. Apex Court in the case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Paragraph nos.1 to 7 of the judgement rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: "1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred. 4 TACL No. 949 of 2023

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.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant's mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent- husband.

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. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad is transferred to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi. The Family Court, Ghaziabad is directed to transmit the record of the case to Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi forthwith. The Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi is directed to decide the aforementioned proceeding of Matrimonial Case No.1764 of 2023 (CNR No.UPGZ020037062023 (Ritesh Sharma vs. Smt. Diya), under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 16, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad