A wife's transfer petition to move her husband's Restitution of Conjugal Rights case from Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, to Bhilwara, Rajasthan, was granted by the Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench, which included Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, noted that the petitioner-wife lived permanently at her parents' house and had no separate source of income.

The Apex Court was asked to decide whether the divorce procedures that the respondent-husband had started in Ujjain under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, should be moved to Bhilwara, where the petitioner-wife resides. The Court decided in the petitioner's favor, citing the pending litigation in her home district and the fact that she lacked the funds to travel.

Background of the Case

Honey, the petitioner, petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer "Yogesh Versus Smt. Honey," Case No. RCS/HM/0000067 of 2025. The case was pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Court, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, and was filed by the respondent-husband, Yogesh, for the restoration of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Citing her incapacity to successfully challenge the case at Ujjain, the petitioner requested that the case be moved to the Family Court in Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner-wife's knowledgeable attorney stated that she lives permanently at her parents' house in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Financial difficulty was the main justification for the transfer request. 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," according to the argument.

The attorney further pointed out that the parties are now involved in four other issues that are awaiting resolution in Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

The respondent-husband failed to show up in court to challenge the petition. "Even though the respondent's service is complete, no one has appeared on his behalf," the court observed.

Court’s Analysis

After hearing the petitioner's attorney, the Bench determined that the plea had merit. The petitioner's argument about her residence and financial reliance was accepted by the court.

The Bench noted in its order:

"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 because the petitioner-wife claims to be permanently residing at her parental home in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, and is completely dependent on her family, lacking any independent means of income or support to travel to Ujjain to attend the proceedings initiated by the Respondent."

Noting that "four more cases are pending at Bhilwara, Rajasthan," the Court further considered the parties' convenience with relation to several lawsuits.

Decision

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2666 of 2025 was granted by the Supreme Court. The Court directed the transfer of Case No. RCS/HM/0000067 of 2025, which was pending before the Ujjain Family Court, to the Bhilwara, Rajasthan Family Court.

Additionally, the Court instructed the transferee Court to either hear the case on its own or transfer it to another court with the necessary authority. The records have to be transmitted to the transferee court as soon as possible.

The Bench also gave directives to use technology to expedite the procedures whenever possible:

"The parties may be allowed to appear via video conference on non-effective dates of hearings if video conferencing facilities are available in the transferee Court."

In order to lessen the parties' burden, the Court further recommended administrative efficiency:

"Cases may be assigned to a single court whenever feasible, and an attempt can be made to schedule these cases for 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