Section 24 CPC — Transfer Petition — Wife (Applicant) Seeking Transfer of Husband’s Matrimonial Case — Application Dismissed Applicant-wife Tamanna filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of RCSHMA No. 9/2024 (matrimonial case filed by husband Saleem Khan) from Family Court, Morena to Additional District Judge, Dabra. Held: No grounds for transfer established. Paras 1, 2, 9, 10

1. Section 24 CPC — Transfer Petition — Wife (Applicant) Seeking Transfer of Husband’s Matrimonial Case — Application Dismissed

Applicant-wife Tamanna filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of RCSHMA No. 9/2024 (matrimonial case filed by husband Saleem Khan) from Family Court, Morena to Additional District Judge, Dabra.
Held: No grounds for transfer established.
Paras 1, 2, 9, 10

2. Wife’s Plea — Difficulty in Travelling from Chinaur to Morena (125 km) — Not Supported by Record

Wife contended she attends every date at Morena and finds travel difficult.
Court noted—this fact was not pleaded in the transfer application, and no order-sheets were filed to substantiate attendance.
Paras 2, 5, 7

3. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — Wife’s Own Petition Seeking “Shared Household” at Morena Undercuts Her Transfer Request

Applicant filed proceedings under Section 12 DV Act, including a prayer under Section 19 DV Act for right of residence in the shared household.
Counsel conceded that the shared household is in Morena.
Held: Asking to transfer the matrimonial case away from Morena contradicts her own relief seeking residence in Morena.
Paras 6, 7, 9

4. Applicant’s Litigation History — DV Act, Maintenance Proceedings, FIR — All Instituted at Dabra After Husband Filed Divorce Suit

Husband filed divorce case first on 16.04.2024.
Only thereafter did wife file:
(i) FIR under Section 498A IPC,
(ii) Section 125 CrPC petition,
(iii) DV Act application — all at Dabra.
This chronology was noted while assessing allegations of harassment.
Para 3

5. Transfer Would Defeat Wife’s Own DV Act Claim for Residence in Matrimonial Home (Morena)

Since wife seeks right to reside in the Morena matrimonial home, transferring the matrimonial case to Dabra would defeat the purpose of her own DV Act petition.
Para 7

6. Financial Hardship Due to Travel — Remedy Lies Before Trial Court, Not in Transfer

Even if travel expenses are burdensome, wife may move the Morena court for to-and-fro expenses, which the trial court can award.
Transfer is not the appropriate remedy.
Para 8

7. No Evidence of Harassment by Husband Through Non-Appearance

Wife argued that the husband’s absence from hearings harasses her.
Court found no material on record to support this allegation.
Paras 2, 5

8. Transfer Jurisdiction — Convenience Must Be Real, Substantiated — Not Based on Unsupported Assertions

Court reiterates: Transfer under Section 24 CPC requires tangible material showing difficulty; mere assertions without pleadings or documents do not justify transfer.
Paras 5, 7, 9

9. Result — Transfer Petition Rejected

Court finds no case made out; petition dismissed.
Para 10