Ruchi Yadav vs Santosh Yadav Alias Rahul

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 45 of 2026

¶3

Ruchi Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Santosh Yadav Alias Rahul				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Vikas Shweta :	Verma, Srivasta	Abhishek va	Srivastava,

¶6

Court No. - 19

¶7

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The present application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant seeking transfer of proceeding of the Case No. 524 of 2025 (Santosh Yadav alias Rahul Versus Smt. Ruchi Yadav), filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya/Faizabad to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

This Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 passed the following orders:

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶12

The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer Petition No. 524 of 2025 titled Santosh Yadav alias Rahul Vs. Smt. Ruchi Yadav" filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya/Faizabad, to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, as stated in the prayer clause of the application.

¶13

Issue notice to the respondent(s), returnable at an early date.

¶14

Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

List along with service report on 30.04.2026. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Petition No. 524 of

¶16

TACL No. 45 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

2025 pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya/Faizabad shall remain stayed. "

¶19

Perusal of office report dated 29.04.2026 shows that the notice sent to opposite party has been received by his brother at the address indicated in the summons. Thus, the service of notice upon the opposite party is deemed sufficient as per Order V, Rule 15 of the C.P.C., 1908.

¶20

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

¶21

The case in brief as put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was solemnized on 17.05.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Ambedkar Nagar. Thereafter, the applicant went to her matrimonial home at Ayodhya and performed her matrimonial duties and obligations with the opposite party and his family members.

¶22

It is alleged on behalf of the applicant that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment by the opposite party and his family members, for want of dowry. Further, on 13.12.2024, the applicant was forcibly turned out of her matrimonial home compelling her to take shelter at her parental home situated at District Ambedkar Nagar, where she is residing since then.

¶23

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that despite sincere efforts made by the applicant and her family members for reconciliation; the opposite party refused to take her back. On the other hand, the opposite party instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya. The said petition has been registered as Case No. 524 of 2025.

¶24

By means of the instant transfer application, the applicant has pleaded that she has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon her aged parents and is not in a financial position to bear the cost of litigation, more particularly the expenses of repeated travel to Ayodhya, to pursue the case. The applicant is residing with her old aged parents at Ayodhya. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the very purpose of the institution of the aforesaid case, by the opposite party, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Ayodhya is just to harass the applicant.

¶25

TACL No. 45 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case instituted by the applicant under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. for maintenance is also pending at Ambedkar Nagar.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that since the applicant is residing in Ambedkar Nagar and the distance between her residence and the Family Court at Ayodhya is considerable, rendering it extremely difficult and inconvenient for her, being a lady, to travel alone to Ayodhya on each and every fixed date in the said case. It is further submitted that at present, she has no one in her family to escort her to the Court at Ayodhya to attend the court proceeding on every date.

¶29

In the matters of transfer of matrimonial cases, the factors of age of wife; distance between the place of residence and the place where matrimonial proceedings are pending/filed, as well as absence of person to escort her, are some of the grounds needs consideration, 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 .

¶30

In Anjali Ashok Sadhwani (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:

¶31

"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. 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, 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."

¶32

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

TACL No. 45 of 2026

4

under:-

"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. 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."

¶37

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:

¶38

"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."

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in while deciding in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap versus Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap , reported in 2016 (14) SCC 356 has observed as under:

¶40

“5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 km. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.? "

¶41

In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, and considering the facts pleaded before this Court that the applicant is a lady having no independent source of income, dependent upon her parents, facing harassment and having no one to accompany her during the journey between Ambedkar Nagar and Ayodhya, coupled with the fact that another proceeding between the parties is pending consideration before the competent court at Ambedkar

¶42

TACL No. 45 of 2026

¶43

5

¶44

Nagar; this Court finds it to be a reasonable case for exercise of its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the case deserves to be transferred, as prayed for, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶45

The instant transfer application stands allowed . The Case No. 524 of 2025 (Santosh Yadav alias Rahul Versus Smt. Ruchi Yadav), filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶46

The concerned Court at Ayodhya shall ensure early transmission of the record to the learned Family Court at Ambedkar Nagar, which shall proceed in the matter from the stage it is transferred to the said Court.

¶47

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶48

April 30, 2026 Virendra

¶49

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

Ruchi Yadav v. Santosh Yadav Alias Rahul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchi Yadav v. Santosh Yadav Alias Rahul

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

Ramesh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 4 Others

Abhishek Kumar vs Collector, District Barabanki & Others

Kallu and Others vs Ahmar Shekh and Another

Prema Devi and 6 Others vs the Awadh Sugar Mills Ltd. Presently Known as the Awadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. Thru. Its Manager

Smt. Richa Mishra vs Shivram Dubey

Smt. Akanksha Mishra vs Ravikant Mishra