Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶3

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 141 of 2024

Ayushi Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Dharmendra Kumar

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogendra Singh, Akash Deep Singh, Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Amit Tripathi, Sudhir Shukla Court No. - 19

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Sri Akash Deep Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party are present.

¶11

This Court repeatedly allowed time to the learned counsel for the opposite party to file objection but till date, no objection has been filed.

¶12

Today, on the matter being taken up, Sri Sudhir Shukla Advocate, who appears for the opposite party, at the very outset, stated that despite his best efforts, he could not get any instructions from his client (opposite party), as such, he is unable to file any reply or objection on behalf of the opposite party. Thus, the Court proceeds to dispose of the present Application on the basis of the material available on record.

¶13

The present application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking transfer of Case No. 71 of 2024 (Dharmendra Kumar Versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) filed by the opposite party under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at District Unnao.

¶14

The case in brief as put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant was married to the Opposite Party on

¶15

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

01.12.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred through RTGS along with various customary gifts by the applicant's parents and relatives. After marriage, the applicant initially lived peacefully at her matrimonial house, but subsequently, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment, by the opposite party and his family members, for want of dowry and ultimately the applicant was forcefully ousted from her matrimonial house.

¶18

It is pleaded on behalf the applicant that on 09.01.2024, the Opposite Party instituted a divorce petition dated 09.01.2024 before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. Furthermore, on 28.05.2024, the Opposite Party threatened the applicant with dire consequences, including life threat, in order to stop her from participating in the Court proceedings.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on account of serious threats from the opposite party and also due to the financial constraints as well as unavoidable personal difficulties, the applicant, being a lady, having no one in her family to escort her to attend the Court proceedings on every date fixed in the case; preferred the instant Application under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying therein for the transfer the case from Agra, which is approximately 300 Kms. away to Unnao.

¶20

As is evident from the record that with the consent of the parties the matter was initially referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court vide order dated 04.02.2025. For ready reference the same is quoted herein below:

¶21

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Krishan Tiwari, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶22

Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking transfer of Case No.71 of 2024; (Dharmendra Kumar versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) instituted by opposite party under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to equally competent Family Court, Unnao.

¶23

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

Learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions submits that the matter may be referred to mediation.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party also on the basis of instructions concedes to the aforesaid prayer.

¶27

In view thereof, applicant and opposite party are directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court on 25.02.2025.

¶28

Endeavor shall be made by the Center to file its report within a period of four weeks.

¶29

List this case on 27.03.2025.

¶30

Till next date of listing, proceedings of Case No.71 of 2024; (Dharmendra Kumar versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra shall remain stayed."

¶31

It is testified by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit dated 15.10.2025 that mediation proceeding started on 25.02.2025 and the parties agreed for settlement on Rs.32,00,000, out of the said amount, the respondent deposited only Rs.16,00,000 on 25.07.2025 by way of 'demand draft' and took a month's time for depositing rest of the amount on 25.08.2025. It is averred by the applicant that during the pendency of the mediation proceeding, the opposite party filed a case before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. having Application U/S 482 No. 7060 of 2025, wherein this Court taking into consideration the ongoing mediation proceedings, stayed the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao vide order dated 27.08.2025. After passing of the aforesaid stay/order the opposite party herein just to defeat the mediation proceedings immediately withdrew the said amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-,

¶32

It is very emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to the above-mentioned vicious conduct of the opposite party, the applicant has suffered serious mental agony as she was made to run from pillar to post for doing 'Pairvi' of the cases.

¶33

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶34

4

¶35

For ready reference the relevant part of the Order dated 27.08.2025 passed on Application under section 482 having case No. 7060 of 2025 is extracted herein below:

¶36

"Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023, has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet no. 01/2024, dated 07.08.2024, under sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao, as well as Bailable Warrant Order Dated 11.04.2025, passed by Learned J/JD/FTC/LAW, Unnao, in Case No. 1460/2024, 'State Vs Dharmendra Kumar', arising out of Case Crime No. 0084/2024, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dahi, District - Unnao.

¶37

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the instant matter is arising out of a matrimonial dispute and a divorce petition was instituted by the applicant no. 1,Dharmendra Kumar, whereafter, the transfer application was moved before this court bearing Transfer Application No.(TACL) 141 of 2024, wherein the order dated 04-02-2025 was passed and the proceeding of the divorce case was stayed and the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, which is still going on and in pursuance thereof, the applicant no. 1 has deposited Rs. 16 Lac in the form of demand draft in favour of the informant/opposite party no. 2 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court.

¶38

He argued that the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, under sections 498-A,323,504,506 of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are still continuing and since the matter is pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, thus, the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, may be stayed.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶40

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶41

5

¶42

In view of the aforesaid, matter requires consideration.

¶43

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶44

Steps be taken within a week.

¶45

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶46

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 06-102025.

¶47

In the meantime, the opposite parties may file their Counter Affidavits.

¶48

Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0084/2024, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dahi, District - Unnao, shall remain stayed so far as the present applicants are concerned."

¶49

Mediation Report dated 03.09.2025, reflects failure of mediation. On the failure of the mediation proceedings a report to that effect was sent by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre was sent this Court for adjudication.

¶50

After the re-start of the adjudicatory process, this Court on the request of the learned counsel for the opposite party granted him sufficient opportunity to file objections/reply in the matter. However, no objection/reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, till date.

¶51

In the absence of any reply from the side of the opposite party, this Court proceeded to decide the instant matter on the basis of the pleadings/averments made in the present Application duly supported by affidavit.

¶52

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case relied upon the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Versus Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1374, and also in Fatima Versus Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez), reported in AIR 2009 SC 1773.

¶53

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶54

6

¶55

In the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶56

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for transfer filed at the instance of the petitioner wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 13-B of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 seeking transfer of Petition No. 83 of 2006 (Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani v. Anjali Ashok Sadhwani) now pending in the Family Court at Indore to the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record and considering the fact that the distance between Mumbai, Maharashtra and Indore, Madhya Pradesh is about 900 kms and also considering the fact that the petitioner wife has no one in her family to escort her during her journey from Mumbai to Indore, we feel it proper to transfer the case from Family Court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Accordingly, the case being Petition No. 83 of 2006 stands transferred from Family Court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court of Bandra at Mumbai, Maharashtra."

¶58

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fatima (supra) has been pleased to pass the following order:-

¶59

"1. This is a petition for transfer of Petition No. A-55 of 2008 pending before the Family Court at Aurangabad Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez) v. Fatima to the Civil Court at Srinagar, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record and considering the fact that the petitioner wife is only 22 years of age and therefore, it would be difficult for her to attend the court proceedings at Aurangabad from Srinagar. Accordingly, we allow this petition for transfer of the aforesaid case now pending before the Family Court at Aurangabad to the Civil Court at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir for final disposal. The learned Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad is directed to

¶61

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶62

7

¶63

transmit the case records of the aforesaid case to the Family Court at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir within a period of two months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to him."

¶64

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding in the case of Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 41 in paragraph no. 3 of its judgment has observed as under:

¶65

"3. It is the husband's suit against the wife. It is the wife's convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute."

¶66

Taking into consideration the uncontroverted facts and particularly the fact that once the opposite party expressed readiness for the settlement of the dispute through mediation and the Court accepting the request of the parties, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where on 25.02.2025 the opposite party agreed to pay Rs.32 Lacs, and submitted a bank-draft of Rs.16 Lacs on 21.07.2025 out of the total amount before the Mediation Centre of this court and sought further time to deposit the balance amount on 25.08.2025. At the same time, on the other hand, he preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Court, which was registered as Application U/S 482 No. 7060 of 2025, wherein the Court granted stay of the proceeding of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024 vide order dated 27.08.2025 in his favour on the premise of pendency of mediation proceeding going on before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. From the perusal of the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court, it is evident that the Court by taking note of the fact that the opposite party herein has deposited Rs.16 Lacs in the form of Demand Draft in favour of the informant/applicant herein passed the stay order, in favour of the opposite party. Taking advantage of the protection in the criminal proceeding vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this court, the opposite party-husband withdrew the aforesaid amount of Rs.16 Lacs on 03.09.2025 from the Mediation Centre causing mediation process to fail. There was no occasion for the opposite party to withdrew the same knowingly well that his withdrawal of amount

¶67

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶68

8

¶69

deposited as part payment towards settlement would defeat the mediation process. This strategical move on the part of the opposite party-husband goes to show his malafide intention to defeat the process of law and is nothing but abuse of Court. Further, the statement of the learned counsel for the opposite party that despite his best efforts, the opposite party is not providing any instructions to him to defend his case, goes to show his disrespectful behaviour towards the Court's proceeding.

¶70

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha reported in AIR 2022 SC 4318 as held as under:

¶71

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

¶72

In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted herein above, this Court taking into consideration the facts pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a lady aged about 31 years, having no independent source of income and having no one in her family to escort her during the journey between Unnao and Agra to regularly attend the proceedings of the case filed by the opposite party under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on each and every date, finds it to be a reasonable case for exercise of its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the inconvenience caused to the applicant wife in the above uncontradicted facts of the present case is evident and cannot be

¶73

TACL No. 141 of 2024

¶74

9

¶75

ignored or disbelieved.

¶76

The instant transfer application is accordingly allowed. The Case No. 71 of 2024 (Dharmendra Kumar Versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) filed by the opposite party under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, at Unnao.

¶77

The concerned Court at Agra shall ensure early transmission of the record to the learned Family Court at Unnao, which shall proceed in the matter from the stage it has been transferred to the said Court.

¶78

Looking to the inconvenience caused to the applicant-wife as discussed herein above, this court is inclined to levy costs on the opposite party-husband of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) to be paid to the applicant-wife, who appears to have endured suffering during the pendency of the present transfer application.

¶79

Costs as directed shall be paid by the opposite party-husband to the applicant-wife within a period of one month from today. If the costs are not paid, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Agra and shall be paid over to the applicant-wife. A copy of the receipt/acknowledgement of payment of costs shall be placed before the Transferee Court by the opposite party-husband.

¶80

February 17, 2026 Arun

¶81

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶82

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ayushi Singh v. Dharmendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayushi Singh v. Dharmendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

Bhagauti Prasad and Another vs Virendra Kumar Tiwari and Others

Dinesh Kumar Bhatt vs Smt. Vimla Devi and Another

Srishti vs Principal Judge, Family Court District Sultanpur and another

M/S Alpine Infra Projects Ltd., Ghazizbad Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Neeraj Gupta vs Anita Singh

Smt. Shobha Tripathi vs Pradeep Kumar