Rajasthan HC Transfers Divorce Proceedings from Bikaner to Jaisalmer, Dispenses with Notice to Husband

Justice Farjand Ali allowed the wife's transfer petition without issuing notice, holding that 330 km of repeated travel amounted to grave inconvenience warranting immediate forum change.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur on 1 July 2026 transferred a Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act divorce case from Family Court No. 3, Bikaner to the equivalent Family Court at Jaisalmer, acting on a petition filed by the wife. Justice Farjand Ali, sitting singly, dispensed with notice to the respondent-husband altogether and disposed of the transfer application on the day of first hearing. The court held that where the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours one forum and governing precedents support transfer, insisting on prolonged procedural formalities serves no purpose. The order also directed coordinated listing of all pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties before the Jaisalmer court on a common date.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner-wife, Jyoti Khatri, aged 37, resides at Jaisalmer. Her husband, Mukesh Kumar Mangal, aged 39, is resident of Ward No. 4, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner. He had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court No. 3, Bikaner, registered as Case No. 168/2025.

The wife moved S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 152/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, seeking transfer of that case to the equivalent court at Jaisalmer. Her counsel, Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri and Mr. Priyank Kewaliya, submitted that the distance between Bikaner and Jaisalmer is approximately 330 kilometres and that attending every date of hearing at Bikaner would cause grave inconvenience, financial hardship, and physical and mental distress to the wife.

The Court's Concern with Prolonged Transfer Petitions

Before addressing the merits, Justice Farjand Ali made pointed observations about the institutional handling of matrimonial transfer petitions. The court noted that issuing notice in every such petition and keeping matters pending for years, particularly with interim stay orders operating in the meantime, “seldom advances the cause of justice.”

The court observed from its own experience that a considerable number of transfer petitions remain pending merely at the stage of service and completion of pleadings for two to three years. This, the court held, unnecessarily prolongs the agony of parties already in matrimonial discord and delays substantive adjudication. Where the ultimate outcome appears reasonably foreseeable in light of settled legal principles, deferring the matter for years merely for completion of service would allow procedure to overshadow justice itself.

This self-critical observation formed the basis for the court's decision to decide the application at the first hearing itself rather than follow the standard course of issuing notice and awaiting the respondent's reply.

Section 24 CPC and the Power to Transfer Suo Motu

The court grounded its jurisdiction in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confers wide powers upon the High Court to transfer proceedings either on a party's application or suo motu whenever the ends of justice so require. Justice Farjand Ali held that this provision is fundamentally intended to ensure that procedural mechanisms remain subservient to the larger cause of fair adjudication and that the judicial system exists to facilitate access to justice, not to perpetuate procedural hardship.

The court also took note of a practical reality common to matrimonial litigation: proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, and petitions under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are frequently instituted at the place where the wife resides. The effect is that the respondent-husband is already required to appear before courts at that place. Requiring the wife simultaneously to contest proceedings instituted by the husband at a distant forum results in avoidable multiplicity of travel, financial burden, and mental hardship for both parties.

The court found that consolidation of proceedings at one place not only minimises inconvenience but also facilitates coordinated adjudication and reduces the possibility of conflicting orders from different courts.

Dispensing with Notice: The Audi Alteram Partem Question

The court directly addressed the principle of audi alteram partem. It acknowledged that affording a hearing before passing an adverse order is a foundational principle of natural justice. However, it held that this principle is not inflexible and may admit of exceptions where circumstances so warrant.

Justice Farjand Ali reasoned that a mere transfer of proceedings from one competent forum to another does not extinguish, dilute, or adversely affect the substantive rights of either party. The merits of the case remain to be examined by the transferee court. A simple order of transfer, the court held, “can’t be construed as an order adversarial to the interest of the other party.”

The court further noted that where the respondent-husband is already required to appear before courts at Jaisalmer and is regularly attending proceedings there, no irreversible prejudice is occasioned by transferring one additional connected proceeding to the same station. On that reasoning, notice to the respondent was dispensed with entirely.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

Justice Farjand Ali placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani v. Jitesh Kishore Tolani, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 748. The Supreme Court had observed in that case that in matrimonial disputes instituted by the husband against the wife, the convenience of the wife deserves paramount consideration, and ordinarily such proceedings should be adjudicated at a place proximate to the wife's residence so as to “obviate undue hardship.”

The court applied this principle to the facts before it: the wife resides at Jaisalmer, the divorce proceedings were filed at Bikaner 330 kilometres away, and there was no indication that the respondent-husband would suffer any irreversible prejudice from the transfer.

Order

The transfer petition was allowed. Case No. 168/2025, pending before Family Court No. 3, Bikaner, was transferred to the equivalent Family Court at Jaisalmer for adjudication in accordance with law.

The learned Judge at Family Court No. 3, Bikaner was directed to forthwith transmit the entire record of the case to the transferee court and to prepare and forward a report containing particulars of all pending matrimonial or connected proceedings between the parties before that court.

The proceedings are to proceed exclusively before the Family Judge, District Jaisalmer. The court further directed the learned District Judge concerned and the Family Court Judge to endeavour, to the extent administratively feasible, to ensure that all pending and future litigations between the parties are coordinated and listed on one and the same date, so as to minimise multiplicity of appearances.

The court expressly clarified that it had neither examined nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputes between the parties. The stay application and all other pending applications were disposed of accordingly.