Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26919 Court No. - 8 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 71 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Agrawal Opposite Party :- Shri Manish Kumar Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Singh,Abeer Mishr Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shreyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Agarwal, at the very outset, submits that he has uploaded a copy of the counter affidavit after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file any response thereto and the matter can be heard finally. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition has been heard. Be that as it may, the office shall upload the counter affidavit today. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of case bearing Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 08.06.2006. The married life of the petitioner and the respondent went through a roller-coaster ride except for initial five to six months. The petitioner is blessed with two children, but there is no proper discharge of responsibility or obligations by the respondent, either towards the petitioner or her two children. The matter escalated to the extent that the petitioner was turned out from her matrimonial home in the year 2020 with her two children and since then she is residing with her parents in District Gorakhpur. It is also urged that the petitioner has instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as well as a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is also stated that though the respondent has been served in both the proceedings i.e. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, yet the respondent has not put in appearance. It is also urged that no maintenance has been paid by the respondent either to the petitioner or to her two children. In such circumstances, the petitioner is unable to contest the proceedings effectively in District Ayodhya. Hence, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act be transferred to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has stated that the instant petition came to be filed on 03.03.2025 whereas the order in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ayodhya wherein the date was fixed for 04.03.2025. It is stated that the petitioner travelled from Gorakhpur to Lucknow to swear an affidavit in the instant petition, but on the very next day, she did not appear in the proceedings in the Family Court and the matter has proceeded ex-parte. It is, thus, urged that the instant petition has not been filed with bonafide as such the prayer sought by the petitioner be declined. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. Apparently, there is a matrimonial fall out and the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is engaging the attention of the Principal Judge, Family Court in District Ayodhya. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in District Gorakhpur. Admittedly, the respondent has not put in appearance in the said proceedings in District Gorakhpur. Neither he has paid any maintenance to the petitioner. To suggest that the petitioner had travelled from Gorakhpur to Lucknow and not putting her appearance in the proceedings before the Family Court in District Ayodhya may not have much relevance to the controversy wherein this Court is required to consider whether the proceedings which are pending in District Ayodhya can be transferred to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur. In this regard, this Court noticing the dictum of the Apex Court in Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee ( 2002) 10 SCC 480; Pratibha Khemka v. Sanjay Kumar Khemka (2004) 13 SCC 686; Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar, (2000) 1 SCC 589 and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial litigation, a transfer petition at the behest of the wife must be considered liberally and also noticing her preference be given precedence. Consequently, the only issue before this Court is regarding the transfer of the proceedings and in the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it will be appropriate that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya bearing Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya shall forthwith transmit the record of the Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) to the transferee court at Gorakhpur, who shall upon receipt of the record as well as order passed by this Court shall take up the matter and an endeavour be made to decide the same after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment preferably as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench