Allowed

Anjali Singh v. Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026TACL/289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's restitution of conjugal rights suit from Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri to Lucknow, citing young age, ill health, financial hardship and lack of an escort. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on the wife's convenience, the High Court allowed transfer to Family Court, Lucknow.

What did the court decide?

Regular Suit No. 1040 of 2025 under Section 9 HMA transferred from Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri to Family Court, Lucknow.

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 289 of 2025

¶3

Anjali Singh

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
Anuj Kumar Choudhary		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Minakshi Chowdhury, Amrendra Nath Tripathi :	Akash Mishra,

¶5

Court No. - 19

¶6

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Minakshi Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicant and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 issued notice to the opposite party by both ways, i.e., regular mode as wellas dasti notice.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has filed an affidavit of service pursuant to the order dated 10.11.2025, the same is taken on record.

¶10

In the aforesaid affidavit, the applicant has categorically stated that in compliance of the order dated 10.11.2025, a copy of transfer application no. 289 of 2025, along with annexures and dasti notice dated 12.11.2025 issued by the registry of this Court was tried to serve upon the opposite party on 15.11.2025 at 11:30 a.m. by the mother of the applicant at the registered address of the opposite party. However, the opposite party outrightly refused to receive the copy of the instant transfer application and original dasti notice. The applicant along with the said affidavit has annexed a coloured photograph of the mother of the applicant standing outside the house of the opposite party.

¶11

The office report dated 03.12.2025 available on record shows that the notice sent to the opposite party has been received personally by him at the address indicated in the notice. As such, service of notice upon the opposite party is sufficient.

¶12

TACL No. 289 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Today on the case being taken up, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party to defend his case.

¶15

In view of the report dated 03.12.2025 as submitted by the registry, the service of notice upon opposite party is sufficient. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings/averments made in the transfer application, duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant.

¶16

By means of the present transfer application under Section 24 of C.P.C., the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-

¶17

"(i) to issue an order or direction for transfer of Regular Suit No. 1040 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Anuj Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Anjali Singh) pending before the Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri to the Family Court Lucknow.

¶18

(ii). .....

¶19

(iii). ......"

¶20

The case in brief as put-forth by learned counsel appearing for applicant is that the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was solemnized on 24.04.2023 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mahavirganj, Aliganj, Lucknow, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, without any dowry.

¶21

It is further submitted on behalf of learned counsel for applicant that immediately after the marriage, the behaviour of the opposite party towards the applicant drastically changed and within a week of the marriage, the quarrels between the parties started. It is asserted by learned counsel for applicant that the opposite party began suspecting the applicant without any reason, and started raising his hand even in public. These things became the cause of daily fight between them. The applicant was ill treated by the opposite party and even after two years of marriage, the opposite party did not take her to her matrimonial home. The opposite party did not provide any financial support or maintenance to the applicant.

¶22

It is further submitted that after two years of marriage when the

¶23

TACL No. 289 of 2025

¶24

¶25

applicant realized that the opposite party is no longer interested in maintaining the matrimonial relationship with her, she filed a Divorce Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act having Case No. 1726 of 2025 (Anjali Singh Vs. Anuj Kumar Choudhary) before the learned Family Court at Lucknow.

¶26

It is pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the opposite party after coming to know about the filing of the aforesaid divorce petition, became extremely aggressive and vindictive towards the applicant. He began subjecting her to continuous mental cruelty, intimidation and verbal abuse using filthy language with intent to humiliate, harass and emotionally torture the applicant.

¶27

The opposite party used to constantly curse the applicant by uttering words against the applicant and other colloquial cuss words that were disgusting and disrespectful for any women. The applicant also extended threats to the life of the applicant.

¶28

The submission of learned counsel for applicant is that the opposite party mischievously and on frivolous ground to cover up his misdeeds, filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as Regular Suit no. 1040 of 2025 before the learned Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri. It is asserted on behalf of the applicant that after being deserted by the opposite party, the applicant is residing with her brother at Lucknow and is pursuing her study at Lucknow.

¶29

Learned counsel for applicant has very vehemently asserted that the applicant is a young lady of 28 years of age and has no male member to accompany her on each and every date to the Court of Family Court, at Lakhimpur Kheri to do pairvi of the case filed by the opposite party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is also suffering from ill health and financial hardship and is unable to travel to Lakhimpur Kheri from Lucknow to pursue the case under the prevailing circumstances.

¶30

Further more, the afore-mentioned Divorce Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act having Case No. 1726 of 2025 is pending before the Court of learned Family Court, Lucknow. It is also asserted on

¶31

TACL No. 289 of 2025

¶32

¶33

behalf of the applicant that since the applicant is a lady and has no male member to accompany her to attend the proceedings of the case pending before the learned Family Court at Lakhimpur Kheri on each and every date. Moreover, she has no independent source of livelihood and is fully dependent upon her parents for maintenance and daily needs. Thus in the interest of justice, the case filed by the opposite party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act be transferred to the learned Family Court, at Lucknow.

¶34

In the matters of transfer of matrimonial case, the factors of age of wife, distance between the place of residence and the place where matrimonial proceedings were filed, as well as absence of person to escort her, are some of the grounds considered reasonable justification, for directing transfer of case, to a place more suitable as has also been observed 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 .

¶35

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

¶36

“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.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

TACL No. 289 of 2025

¶40

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.”

¶41

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fatima (supra) has held as under:-

¶42

“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.

¶43

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 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.”

¶44

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:-

¶45

"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.

¶46

Taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex

¶47

TACL No. 289 of 2025

¶48

¶49

Court on the issue of transfer of a case from one Court to another Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant is a young lady of 28 years of age and having no independent source of income and pursuing her study at Lucknow and being dependent on her parents having no one in her family to escort her during the journey from Lucknow to Lakhimpur Kheri to attend the proceedings of the case filed by the opposite party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on each and every date, this Court finds it to be a fit case for exercise of its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the case be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at Lucknow.

¶50

The instant transfer application is allowed . The Regular Suit No. 1040 of 2025 (Anuj Kumar Choudhary versus Anjali Singh) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, at Lucknow.

¶51

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

¶52

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶53

January 13, 2026 Virendra

¶54

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

Anjali Singh v. Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Singh v. Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

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

Sweta Nishad vs Anil Kumar Kashyap