Convenience of Wife in Matrimonial Transfers Not Just Preferable but Paramount: Rajasthan High Court Transfers Divorce Proceedings to Udaipur

“Vague Allegations of Bias Against Judge Cannot Justify Transfer” – In a detailed and emphatic ruling Rajasthan High Court delivered a significant judgment in S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 309/2024 and connected matters, ordering the transfer of two matrimonial petitions filed by the husband from Family Court, Nimbahera to Family Court No.2, Udaipur. The Court simultaneously dismissed the husband's counter-transfer application that sought to move all Udaipur-based litigation to Nimbahera, citing allegations of bias and family influence.

The Court observed that in deciding matrimonial transfer petitions, "the comparative hardship and convenience of the wife must be given dominant consideration, especially when she has the custody of a minor child and no independent income." In this context, the High Court’s decision aligns with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence prioritizing the wife’s convenience in matrimonial litigation.

“Multiplicity of Proceedings in Different Districts Would Only Delay Justice” – Rajasthan High Court Upholds Supreme Court's Mandate for Expeditious Disposal

The dispute arose from cross-transfer applications filed by Arushi Jain and Himanshu Choradia, former spouses embroiled in multiple legal proceedings ranging from divorce, maintenance, domestic violence, to child custody and contempt. The wife sought transfer of two divorce petitions filed by the husband under Sections 10 and 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from Nimbahera to Udaipur, where numerous other related proceedings were already pending.

Refusing to be swayed by the husband's allegations of partiality, the Court declared:

“Transfer cannot be granted on generalised assertions or perceived apprehensions of bias. Such unfounded allegations, without evidentiary backing, cannot be the basis to doubt the impartiality of the Presiding Officer.” [Para 12]

It further noted: “If such requests for transfer were to be allowed, it would not only undermine the morale of presiding officers but also render their judicial functioning vulnerable to extraneous allegations.”

A Matrimonial Litigation Scattered Across Two Districts

Arushi Jain, the wife, has been residing in Udaipur with her minor son since 2020, having left the matrimonial home due to alleged mental and physical cruelty. She cited financial dependency, lack of independent income, and the burden of solo caregiving for a minor as compelling grounds for seeking consolidation of proceedings in Udaipur. In contrast, the husband, based in Mumbai, had initiated divorce proceedings at Nimbahera, about 2 hours from Udaipur, while simultaneously attending hearings in both cities.

The Court recorded that multiple proceedings were already pending in Udaipur, including a maintenance claim, domestic violence petition, child custody proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, criminal prosecution under Sections 498A, 377, and 406 IPC, and several contempt petitions. Given this context, the Court found that maintaining bifurcated proceedings in two cities would defeat the very objective of timely adjudication.

In a notable observation, Justice Mathur said: “The Supreme Court has directed all courts to ensure expeditious disposal of all matters between the parties. Consolidating proceedings at one place, Udaipur in this case, is not only practical but necessary to honour that directive.” [Para 13]

Supreme Court Direction: Transfer Must Aid Timely Justice

The High Court was also guided by the Supreme Court’s interim order dated 28 July 2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 3171/2025 titled Himanshu Choradia vs. State of Rajasthan, where the apex court had stayed the wife's interim maintenance and issued a direction for expeditious disposal of all pending disputes between the parties. The High Court noted that:

“Proceedings scattered across multiple districts would obstruct compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive and impose unnecessary burdens on both parties, especially the financially dependent spouse.” [Para 15]

Wife's Comparative Hardship Recognized: “Udaipur Is Her Home, Not a Litigation Burden”

The judgment extensively considered the doctrine of comparative hardship, reiterating that the wife's lack of income, her responsibilities as a mother, and the logistical convenience of Udaipur far outweighed the husband's arguments, especially since he was travelling from Mumbai regardless.

The Court observed: “The wife is residing at Udaipur with her minor son and has no independent income. The husband, being posted in Mumbai, travels to both Udaipur and Nimbahera. No prejudice will be caused to him if the cases are transferred to Udaipur.” [Para 11]

Moreover, the Court noted that Udaipur, being a larger urban and medical centre, also offers better facilities, particularly relevant since the husband's mother was undergoing cancer treatment in Mumbai.

Precedents Reaffirmed: Convenience of Wife is Paramount

The High Court referred to several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court which consistently held that in matrimonial matters, the wife’s convenience must be given precedence, including:

• Mona Arnesh Goyal vs. Arnesh Satya Goyal, AIR 2000 SC 3512

• Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, AIR 2016 SC 3584

• Anjani Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374

• Sunita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396

Justice Mathur followed this settled law and categorically held:

“In matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife should be given paramount consideration while deciding transfer applications.” [Para 13]

Final Orders of the Court:

The Court directed that:

• Case No. 129/2024 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib), and

• Case No. 104/2024 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

pending before the Family Court, Nimbahera, be transferred to Family Court No.2, Udaipur, where several other connected proceedings were already ongoing.

The High Court also directed:

“The Family Court at Udaipur shall endeavour to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments, and in light of the Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2025.” [Para 15]

The husband’s Transfer Application No. 75/2025 was dismissed, and no order as to costs was passed.

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling strikes a clear balance between constitutional principles of access to justice and judicial efficiency, while protecting the institutional integrity of the judiciary from unfounded bias claims. It reaffirms the well-settled principle that in matrimonial litigation, the law must tread with sensitivity, especially towards the economically and emotionally vulnerable spouse.

“Transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes cannot be reduced to a tactical battlefield. They must be guided by empathy, efficiency, and above all, fairness.”

Date of Decision: 29/10/2025