Saurabh Srivastava v. Party

1. Heard Mr. Shashwat Tripathi, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr. Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicant-wife.

2. Notice was issued on the instant transfer application to the opposite party on 6.9.2024. As per office report, service is sufficient upon the opposite party but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf.

3. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a wife and opposite is a husband. Proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, initiated at the instance of opposite party/husband is pending in the Family Court, Prayagraj. Hence, the instant transfer application for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under section 24 C.P.C. and transfer the Divorce Petition No. 981 of 2023 (Saurabh Srivastava Bhavana Srivastava) filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj to Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad or any other neighboring district. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the proceedings in Divorce Petition No. 981 of 2023 filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Learned Principal 2 TACL No. 476 of 2024 Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj during the pendency of the present petition and/or pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that proceeding of case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the opposite party-husband should be transferred from Prayagraj to the competent court at Faizabad. He further placed paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that proceeding of case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from Prayagraj to Faizabad.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/husband is pending at Family Court, Prayagraj.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, perusal of paragraph nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under:- "12. That the applicant being an uneducated lady has difficulty travelling all the way from Faizabad to Prayagraj. She has to be accompanied by a male individual for attending the court proceedings. The pendency of the Divorce Petition before the Ld. Family Court is leading to harassment of the applicant. The OP-1 has been irregular in attending the court proceedings instituted by himself.

13. That the applicant attended the court proceedings on 03.01.2024 and submitted Written Statement to the Divorce Petition filed by the OP-1. A copy of the Written Statement to the Divorce Petition is being filed herewith and marked herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to this affidavit.

14. That the applicant being an uneducated lady is unable to earn enough to maintain herself and her son. The applicant filed an application under Section 24 HMA demanding maintenance from OP-1 3 TACL No. 476 of 2024 during the pendency of Divorce Petition. A copy of the Application under Section 24 HMA alongwith a copy of the order sheet is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this affidavit.

15. That a Misc. Petition had been preferred as by the OP-1 for the divorce proceedings to be expedited and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass a direction to OP-2 to decide the proceedings pending before him expeditiously. A copy of the order was taken on record by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj vide his order dated 21.02.2024. Taking note of the order, the dates in the proceedings are being fixed every fortnight. A copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc. Petition Under Article 227 No. 679 of 2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 to this affidavit."

8. Perusal of paragraphs Nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application as quoted above demonstrate that prayer regarding transfer of the proceeding from Prayagraj to Faizabad at the instance of applicant/wife is genuine.

9. The 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.

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 4 TACL No. 476 of 2024 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."

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra), the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Divorce Petition No.981/2023 (Saurabh Srivastava vs. Bhavana Srivastava), under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj is transferred to Faizabad. The Family Court, Prayagraj is directed to transmit the record of the case to the Family Court at Faizabad. forthwith. The Family Court, Faizabad is directed to conclude the aforementioned matrimonial proceeding to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, accordance with law. September 15, 2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Shashwat Tripathi, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr. Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicant-wife.

2. Notice was issued on the instant transfer application to the opposite party on 6.9.2024. As per office report, service is sufficient upon the opposite party but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf.

3. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a wife and opposite is a husband. Proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, initiated at the instance of opposite party/husband is pending in the Family Court, Prayagraj. Hence, the instant transfer application for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under section 24 C.P.C. and transfer the Divorce Petition No. 981 of 2023 (Saurabh Srivastava Bhavana Srivastava) filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj to Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad or any other neighboring district. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the proceedings in Divorce Petition No. 981 of 2023 filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Learned Principal 2 TACL No. 476 of 2024 Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj during the pendency of the present petition and/or pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that proceeding of case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the opposite party-husband should be transferred from Prayagraj to the competent court at Faizabad. He further placed paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that proceeding of case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from Prayagraj to Faizabad.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/husband is pending at Family Court, Prayagraj.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, perusal of paragraph nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under:- "12. That the applicant being an uneducated lady has difficulty travelling all the way from Faizabad to Prayagraj. She has to be accompanied by a male individual for attending the court proceedings. The pendency of the Divorce Petition before the Ld. Family Court is leading to harassment of the applicant. The OP-1 has been irregular in attending the court proceedings instituted by himself.

13. That the applicant attended the court proceedings on 03.01.2024 and submitted Written Statement to the Divorce Petition filed by the OP-1. A copy of the Written Statement to the Divorce Petition is being filed herewith and marked herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to this affidavit.

14. That the applicant being an uneducated lady is unable to earn enough to maintain herself and her son. The applicant filed an application under Section 24 HMA demanding maintenance from OP-1 3 TACL No. 476 of 2024 during the pendency of Divorce Petition. A copy of the Application under Section 24 HMA alongwith a copy of the order sheet is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this affidavit.

15. That a Misc. Petition had been preferred as by the OP-1 for the divorce proceedings to be expedited and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass a direction to OP-2 to decide the proceedings pending before him expeditiously. A copy of the order was taken on record by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj vide his order dated 21.02.2024. Taking note of the order, the dates in the proceedings are being fixed every fortnight. A copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc. Petition Under Article 227 No. 679 of 2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 to this affidavit."

8. Perusal of paragraphs Nos.12 to 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application as quoted above demonstrate that prayer regarding transfer of the proceeding from Prayagraj to Faizabad at the instance of applicant/wife is genuine.

9. The 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.

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 4 TACL No. 476 of 2024 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."

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra), the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Divorce Petition No.981/2023 (Saurabh Srivastava vs. Bhavana Srivastava), under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj is transferred to Faizabad. The Family Court, Prayagraj is directed to transmit the record of the case to the Family Court at Faizabad. forthwith. The Family Court, Faizabad is directed to conclude the aforementioned matrimonial proceeding to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, accordance with law. September 15, 2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad