Smt. Neetu Singh vs Kamlesh Kumar

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Neetu Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus Kamlesh Kumar .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Santosh Kumar Pandey, Ajay Shukla

¶6

Court No. - 19

¶7

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶9

2.The present application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for transfer of proceeding of Civil Suit No. 1031 of 2023 (Kamlesh Kumar Versus Smt. Neetu Singh) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Sitapur to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at District Lucknow.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant is that the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was solemnized on 11.12.2001 but even after several years unfortunately the applicant could not be blessed with child, therefore with the consent of the parties, she adopted one daughter namely Vanshika.

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that the applicant is a Government teacher and posted at Higher Primary School, Manpara, Vikas Khand, Kasmanda, District Sitapur, which is approximately 90 Kms. away from the Family Court at Lucknow, where the respondent has filed a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended that the applicant is presently residing with her parents and the aforesaid case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is

¶12

TACL No. 2 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

pending since 2023 and is at the evidence stage. It is further contended that the applicant has no such male member in her family to accompany her to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, where the matter is pending consideration. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the respondent and his family members are financially strong and influential person. It is alleged by the applicant that the respondent tried to threaten the applicant with dire consequences and created lots of obstacle for the applicant in attending the Court proceedings. Further, the applicant being a Teacher has to take leave from her institution on each and every date to attend the Court proceedings at Sitapur.

¶15

Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent has been filed, wherein the respondent has refuted the allegations made by the applicant. It is categorically stated on behalf of the respondent that the case pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is almost ripe for final disposal. It is further stated on behalf of the respondent that the applicant is a Government teacher posted at Higher Primary School, Manpara, Vikas Khand, Kasmanda, District Sitapur and is getting salary about 95,000/- and the distance of her college is near about 30 Kms from Sitapur.

¶16

It is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent that the applicant has filed the present transfer petition with malafide intention, just to delay the ongoing proceedings of the case which is in the evidence stage before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur. He further contended that the allegation of threat is totally a bald allegation as nothing has been filed by the applicant along with this petition to substantiate the same.

¶17

This Court in the case of Nagendra Sharma and Another Versus The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine All 8489 , has held as under:

¶18

"It is trite in law that transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under the facts and circumstances of the case and only if the allegations made by the applicant seeking transfer of the proceedings are

¶19

TACL No. 2 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

straightway discovered or found to be adversely affecting the interest of justice. Further, a petition seeking transfer of the case should not be based on conjectures and surmises and the onus is on the person who alleges bias to substantiate that the apprehensions are reasonable, genuine and justifiable. There must be cogent evidence available on record to infer the existence of any element of bias."

¶22

It is safe to observe that no universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding the transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Another aspect that also needs attention is that the transfer of case from one court to another is a serious matter because it indirectly casts doubt on the competence of the judge from whom the matter is transferred, this should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. If there are good and sufficient means for transferring case from one court to another, the same must be clearly set out. The court while exercising the power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may not interfere in a casual manner unless a strong case for transfer is made out to establish that continuation of the case in a particular court would lead to injustice or the suit has been filed in a particular court for the purpose of working injustice. Further, mere balance of convenience in favour of parties in another court is not a sufficient ground, though it is a relevant consideration. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the applicant alone who approached the Court seeking transfer of the pending proceeding on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the parties and of course the best interest of litigation. The observations finds support from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani Versus State of T.N. and Another, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204.

¶23

Taking into consideration the grounds raised by the applicant, more particularly, that when the applicant herself is presently working as a Government Teacher in District Sitapur, there is no occasion for her to seek transfer of the case from Sitapur to Lucknow. Further that the order sheet dated 12.01.2026 as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is evident that the applicant did not participate in the proceedings and the Court

¶24

TACL No. 2 of 2026

¶25

4

¶26

granted last opportunity for the cross-examination of the O.P.W.-1. In such a situation where the proceedings are expected to be concluded shortly, there appears to be no justification to allow the instant transfer application only on the ground of convenience of one party. It would not be out of place to say although at the cost of repetition that the convenience for the purposes of transfer of the case is not confined to the convenience of the litigating party alone but of course, the best interest of litigation. Thus, the instant application seeking transfer of the proceedings does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and is liable to be rejected.

¶27

Resultantly, the present transfer application filed by the applicant under Section 24 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed, with no order, as to costs.

¶28

April 22, 2026 Arun

¶29

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶30

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

Smt. Neetu Singh v. Kamlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neetu Singh v. Kamlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Sudha Jain and Another vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Sansthan Lko. and Another

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Patel Advance Jv Thru. Authorized Representative Rajneesh Kumar vs Shri Arvind Mehta