Dismissed¶11

Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari v. Sachin Kumar

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2026Tr.Pet.CVL/96/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Sanjay Prasad, J., dated 15.04.2026; Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:10826) — Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025, Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari v. Sachin Kumar. Transfer of matrimonial suit under Section 24 CPC; Section 9 HMA restitution of conjugal rights suit at Family Court, Ramgarh; wife's Section 13 HMA divorce suit at Family Court, Ranchi; Section 498-A IPC complaint; convenience of wife; travel distance of approximately 70 kms; cross-cases/counter case between parties; transfer refused; Rs.1,000/- per-date cost imposed on husband.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed; the Section 9 HMA restitution suit to continue before the Family Court, Ramgarh, with the husband directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost to the wife on each and every date of her attendance at Ramgarh. ¶11

Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari Vs Sachin Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10826 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sachin Kumar ….. Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶11

¶12

04/15.04.2026 Heard Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶13

2. This Transfer Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner (i.e. wife) under Section 24 of C.P.C. for transfer of Original Matrimonial Suit No. 146 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party (i.e. husband) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal right, from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi .

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is a lady and she has to travel from Ranchi to Ramgarh to attend the Court proceedings, which is not practically possible as she has to travel more than Seventy (70) kms. and she has no source of income also.

¶15

4. However, learned counsel for the Opposite Party (i.e. husband) has submitted that Ramgarh is not far away from Ranchi and the

Neutral Citation No.

( 2026:JHHC:10826 )

petitioner could attend the Court proceeding and return back on the same day.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party (i.e. Husband) has submitted that he is still ready and willing to keep the petitioner (i.e. wife) with full honour and dignity and she remained with the petitioner only for two months.

¶21

6. During course of argument learned counsel for the parties have admitted that the petitioner (i.e. wife) Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari has also filed a suit for divorce against her husband, i.e. the Opposite Party.

¶22

7. It appears from the submission of both the parties that the husband-opposite Party has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereas the wife-petitioner has filed a separate suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.

¶23

8. It is also submitted that even a complaint has also been filed by the petitioner-wife against the opposite party-husband under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

¶24

9. It appears that Civil Courts, Ramgarh is not far away from the Civil Courts, Ranchi and there is a distance of only approximately 70 kms and even both sides have instituted a case and a counter case against each other.

¶25

10. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for transfer of Original

¶26

¶27

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10826 )

¶28

Matrimonial Suit No. 146 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.

¶29

11. Thus, this Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

12. However, the opposite party-Husband is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the petitionerWife on each and every date for coming to Ramgarh to attend the Court proceeding.

¶31

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶32

s.m. Dated 15.04.2026

¶33

Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari v. Sachin Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari v. Sachin Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Umeshwar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Ritu Kumari Vs Rajesh Prasad Bhagat

M/S Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Vs M/S Brahamand Mining and Construction

Kajal Kumari Vs Vijit Kumar

Soni Rewani Vs Ranjit Rewani

Ashwini Kumar Dubey Alias Ashwini Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand