CASE NAME: Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya
CASE NUMBER: Misc. Civil Case No. 478 of 2026
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
DATE: 18 February 2026
QUORUM: Justice Deepak Khot
FACTS
The Petitioner (wife) filed the present petition seeking transfer of RCSHM No. 123/2025, Deepak Kuchbandiya v. Ekta Vaish, pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Narsinghpur, to the competent Court at District Harda. This case was filed on the grounds that the applicant’s marriage with the respondent (husband) was solemnised on 10 August 2024. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, which led to the filing of an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent in the Family Court of Narsinghpur, and the applicant also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance before the Family Court of Harda, which is pending adjudication.
ISSUES
- Whether the Applicant has sufficient grounds to transfer the matrimonial case from Narsinghpur to Harda?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT:
The counsel on behalf of the Applicant submitted that while she had been residing in her matrimonial home, she was subject to cruelty and assault, which led to the filing of FIRs on 28 August 2025 and 24 October 2025. Due to continuous threats and fear, the applicant faced difficulty travelling to attend the court proceedings, as she had to travel alone. The counsel stated that the applicant does not have any source of income and is dependent on family members. The applicant, being a lady, is entitled to contest the case at a place which is convenient for her. It was contended that the distance between Harda and Narsinghpur is more than 300 kms. Hence, the counsel submits that the case filed by the respondent be transferred to the competent Court at District Harda, which is the applicant’s resident district.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court relied upon judicial precedents and observed that in the case of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das [(2006) 9 SCC 197] the Apex Court held that since leniency in transfer petitions filed by women was being misused, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for transfer, especially when travel and stay expenses were assured by the respondent, the transfer petition was dismissed with directions were issued to cover her expenses. Further, in the case of Preeti Sharma vs. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535, the Supreme Court noted that merely being a woman is not a sufficient ground for transfer of a case, and instead directed that travel and stay expenses be paid while dismissing the transfer petition.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the convenience of the wife/lady is not the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications, and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided through video conferencing. It was observed that both the FIRs were lodged by the applicant at Narsingpur against the Respondent, for which the applicant travelled to record her statements, as well as the fact that an application had been filed by the respondent.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, that the application was disposed of with the direction that the applicant may appear before the Court through video conferencing. The applicant shall attend the Family Court at Narsingpur for her examination on dates fixed by the Court, and the expenses would be borne by the respondent. The court directed to fix a date for the examination of the applicant and direct the respondent to make payment of the expenses of travel, lodging and boarding.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present case shows an attempt to balance fairness and efficiency by refusing the transfer, while protecting the wife’s access to justice through video-conferencing and ordering the respondent to bear the travel and lodging expenses and emphasising that mere inconvenience or gender alone does not justify transfer.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
