S v. T, 2026

The petitioner-wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings pending in Alwar to Jaipur.

She stated that she was residing in Jaipur and had no source of income.

According to the petitioner, travelling from Jaipur to Alwar on every date of hearing would impose a substantial and unnecessary financial burden upon her.

The respondent-husband opposed the transfer and contended that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Jaipur but was originally from Dholpur.

The respondent also pointed out that an FIR had been registered at Dholpur.

It was further alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was residing in Jaipur in a live-in relationship with another man, and photographs were produced in support of that allegation.

The respondent submitted that, even if the petitioner had to travel from Jaipur to Alwar, he was willing to bear her travelling and other expenses.

The respondent argued that merely claiming financial hardship could not, by itself, justify transferring the matrimonial proceedings.

The High Court examined whether the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner established a sufficient basis for transferring the proceedings from Alwar to Jaipur.

The Court observed that the petitioner's status as a permanent resident of Jaipur was not prima facie established.

The Court further accepted that financial difficulty, in the circumstances of the case, did not establish that the petitioner was incapable of travelling, particularly when the husband had offered to bear the expenses.

The Court consequently declined to transfer the divorce proceedings.

At the same time, the Court provided procedural safeguards by permitting the petitioner to appear through Nyay-Mitra, video conferencing, or personally, with liberty to seek reimbursement of expenses from the respondent in the event of personal appearance.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the transfer petition seeking transfer of the divorce proceedings from Alwar to Jaipur.

The Court held that merely because the petitioner claimed to be financially weak, it could not automatically be concluded that she was unable or incapable of travelling from Jaipur to Alwar.

The Court took note of the respondent's undertaking that he was prepared to bear the petitioner's travelling and other expenses for attending the proceedings.

The Court observed that the petitioner's claim of being a permanent resident of Jaipur was not prima facie clear.

The Court therefore found no sufficient justification for transferring the matrimonial proceedings merely on the basis of the petitioner's alleged financial incapacity.

Instead of ordering transfer, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate through Nyay-Mitra or video conferencing.

If she chose to appear personally, she was permitted to seek reimbursement of the expenses incurred for such appearance from the respondent.

Transfer is discretionary: Matrimonial transfer petitions are not decided solely on the basis of a party's assertion of inconvenience. The Court considers the totality of circumstances and whether the inconvenience is sufficiently serious to warrant shifting the proceeding.

Financial incapacity must be substantiated: The judgment indicates that simply stating that one has no income or limited financial means is not necessarily enough to establish an inability to travel.

Offer to bear expenses: The husband's willingness to pay travelling and related expenses substantially addressed the particular hardship relied upon by the petitioner.

Residence was relevant: The Court specifically considered the fact that the petitioner's permanent residence in Jaipur was not prima facie established, weakening the factual foundation for seeking transfer there.

Alternative procedural protection: Rather than treating transfer as the only solution, the Court adopted less disruptive alternatives, including video conferencing and representation through Nyay-Mitra.

Balancing convenience and procedural efficiency: The decision reflects an approach where the inconvenience faced by one litigant is balanced against the need to avoid transferring proceedings when adequate alternatives can address that inconvenience.

Practical significance: The judgment demonstrates that courts may accommodate a litigant facing genuine difficulty without necessarily moving an entire matrimonial proceeding to another jurisdiction.

Important distinction: The Court's observation concerning the alleged live-in relationship was part of the factual context placed before it; the dismissal of the transfer petition principally turned on the absence of sufficient justification for transfer and the availability of alternative arrangements.