Saumya Tripathi @ Sakshi Tripathi vs Abhimanyu Pandey

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 316 of 2025

Saumya Tripathi @ Sakshi Tripathi

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
Abhimanyu Pandey	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rahul Mishra, Rakshak Shukla :

¶5

Court No. - 19

¶6

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rakshak Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 issued notice to the opposite party by both ways, i.e., regular mode as well as dasti notice, and further directed that affidavit of service be filed on the next date fixed i.e. 13.01.2026.

¶9

In pursuance of the said order dated 09.12.2025, the dasti notice dated 15.12.2025 issued by the registry along with copy of the Transfer Application was sent to the opposite party through Speed Post. In compliance of the order dated 09.12.2025 an affidavit of service dated 12.01.2026 has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

¶10

Perusal of office report dated 12.01.2026 submitted by Joint Registrar (e-court) shows that service of notice upon the sole opposite party is sufficient in accordance with Order V, Rule 15 of the C.P.C.

¶11

In paragraph no. 6 of the aforesaid affidavit, it is stated that the notice was dispatched through speed post on 01.01.2026, which stood duly delivered on 07.01.2026. In support of the said statement, a copy of postal receipt and 'Tracking Report' has been annexed with said affidavit to demonstrate that the notice was delivered to the opposite party and received on 07.01.2026.

¶12

Today on the case being taken up, none appeared on behalf of the

¶13

TACL No. 316 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

opposite party to defend his case.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings/averments made in the present application supported by an affidavit on behalf of the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

"(i) to transfer the Case No. 648/2025 (Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act) titled "Abhimanyu Pandey Vs. Sakshi Tripathi" pending in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III Prayagraj to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh.

¶19

(ii). .....

¶20

(iii). ......"

¶21

The case in brief as put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant was introduced to the opposite party through a mutual acquaintance leading both families to begin marriage discussions. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party and his family demanded dowry from the applicant's family. As the applicant's family was financially weak, to meet the heavy demands of the opposite party and his family, the father of the applicant had to sell his ancestral agricultural land shortly before the marriage to fulfill the dowry demands.

¶22

It is submitted that the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was solemnized on 25.02.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Bhawani Palace, Pratapgarh. It is the case of the applicant that the consent of her family to the said matrimonial alliance was procured through deception and deliberate misrepresentation by the opposite party and his family members, who falsely projected that the opposite party is employed as a Stenographer in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The applicant’s family, acting under the bona fide belief consented to the marriage proposal, which was induced by fraud and concealment of material facts.

¶23

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that soon after the

¶24

TACL No. 316 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

applicant entered her matrimonial home, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the opposite party and his family members, who not only started raising unlawful demands for additional dowry but also extended open threats of severe physical harm for nonfulfillment thereof. Despite enduring continuous harassment, the applicant made sincere efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship, however, the cruelty intensified to a life-threatening extent, culminating in an incident where she was electrocuted, resulting in loss of consciousness, following which the opposite party misled her parents by falsely claiming that she had merely fallen ill. The following day, the applicant's parents brought her back to the parental home, and upon regaining consciousness at Community Hospital, Sandwa Chandrika, where on being medically examined multiple injuries indicative of sustained physical assault was revealed.

¶27

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to the aforesaid ill conduct of the opposite party and his family members, the applicant, being unable to bear the cruelty, was compelled to take shelter at her parental residence situated at Gram Benipur, Post Kanpa, District Pratapgarh. Thereafter, on 27.03.2025, the applicant had to lodged an F.I.R., bearing No. 0130/2025, against the opposite party and his family members at Kotwali City Police Station, Pratapgarh, following which the opposite party, with malicious intention to harass her, instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act having Case No. 648 of 2025, (Abhimanyu Pandey Vs. Sakshi Tripathi) currently pending before the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Prayagraj.

¶28

It is pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the averments in the petition filed by the opposite party/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are replete with lies and deceit. Since the applicant has lodged the above-mentioned FIR against the opposite party husband and his family, the opposite party/husband, just to cover up their misdeeds filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the applicant is residing at Gram Benipur, District Pratapgarh, and that the distance between her residence and the Family Court at Prayagraj is

¶30

TACL No. 316 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

considerable, rendering it extremely difficult and inconvenient for her, being a lady, to travel alone to Prayagraj on each date fixed in the proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant has no independent source of income and she is entirely dependent upon her parents for sustenance. It is contended that she lacks financial means to bear the travel expenses and cost of litigation required to contest the case at Prayagraj. It is also asserted on behalf of the applicant that she has been subjected to cruelty, physical assault, electrocution and threats of being burnt alive, and that, having regard to the same her physical presence at Prayagraj would expose her to imminent danger, particularly as the opposite party, along with his family members, stands named in F.I.R. No. 0130/2025 for offences involving violence, cruelty and unlawful confinement.

¶33

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 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.

¶34

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

¶35

"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.

¶36

2. 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,

¶37

TACL No. 316 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

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."

¶40

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

¶41

"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.

¶42

2. 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."

¶43

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:

¶44

"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."

¶45

TACL No. 316 of 2025

¶46

6

¶47

In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, on the issue of transfer of a case from one Court to another Court, this Court taking into consideration the facts pleaded before this Court on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is young lady of 21 years of age and having no independent source of income and being dependent on her parents and having no one in her family to escort her during the journey between Pratapgarh and Prayagraj to regularly 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, coupled with the fact as narrated before this Court that the applicant has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty and an FIR No. 0130/2025 has been lodged against the opposite party and his family members at Kotwali City Police Station, Pratapgarh; finds it to be a reasonable case for exercise of its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the case be transferred from the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Prayagraj to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at Pratapgarh.

¶48

The instant transfer application is allowed . The Case No. 648 of 2025 (Abhimanyu Pandey versus Sakshi Tripathi) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, be transferred from the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Prayagraj to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, at Pratapgarh.

¶49

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

¶50

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶51

January 19, 2026 Virendra

¶52

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

Saumya Tripathi @ Sakshi Tripathi v. Abhimanyu Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saumya Tripathi @ Sakshi Tripathi v. Abhimanyu Pandey

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

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