The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move a matrimonial suit based solely on anticipated convenience after a family member’s future retirement, reasserting that absence of existing accommodation and lack of current hardship or prejudice bar such transfers. The decision upholds established transfer jurisprudence, offering binding guidance within the state’s jurisdiction for future family cases.
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Tr.Pet.CVL/13/2023 of REKHA PASWAN Vs AJAY KUMAR |
| CNR | JHHC010047442023 |
| Date of Registration | 13-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Jharkhand |
| Type of Law | Family / Matrimonial Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a matrimonial case can be transferred solely on anticipated future convenience and possible future residence, without current hardship or accommodation in the proposed forum. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Original Suit No. 285 of 2021 (matrimonial) is pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad; petitioner’s application sought transfer to Garhwa on the ground that her father, presently serving in Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, is about to retire and may reside in Garhwa thereafter. No accommodation or current residence in Garhwa is shown. No prejudice is shown by current proceedings in Dhanbad. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar family law transfer petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere anticipation of future convenience, such as possible future residence due to a family member’s retirement, is insufficient to justify transfer.
- Highlights that existing accommodation, current hardship, or prejudice must be proven for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
- Absence of any present residential arrangement or concrete prejudice in the current forum is fatal to a transfer petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s claim that transfer should be allowed based on the anticipated retirement of her father, who might later reside in Garhwa.
- It found that there is no present accommodation for the petitioner in Garhwa, nor any current assertion or proof of residence there.
- The Court observed that the ongoing suit in Dhanbad is proceeding smoothly, and the petitioner has already availed remedies such as seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Finding no disclosure of prejudice or hardship in continuing before the Family Court at Dhanbad, nor any compelling reason for transfer under existing legal standards, the petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought transfer of matrimonial suit from Dhanbad to Garhwa, citing anticipated convenience after her father’s retirement and possible future residence in Garhwa.
Respondent
- No appearance or submissions recorded on behalf of the opposite party.
Factual Background
The case involved a transfer petition relating to Original Suit No. 285 of 2021, filed under Sections 13(1)(ia), (ib), and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the husband (opposite party). The petitioner-wife sought transfer to Garhwa, asserting prospective convenience due to her father’s impending retirement and potential future residence in Garhwa. However, the petitioner currently had no accommodation at Garhwa, and the matter was smoothly proceeding before the Family Court, Dhanbad.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding.
- The transfer sought did not fall within any statutory right or guideline under the Act; no expansive reading was applied.
- The petition was assessed against established transfer principles, focusing on present hardship or prejudice, rather than possible future events.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or changes to standard requirements were introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law reaffirmed regarding requirements for transfer petitions in matrimonial matters.