Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19759 Court No. - 8 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 120 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Agrahari Opposite Party :- Shivam Agrahari Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pawan Kumar Tiwari,Aditya Tiwari Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition preferred under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Original Suit No.325 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Pratapgarh to the appropriate court in District Faizabad (now Ayodhya). 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 08.05.2021. However, soon after the marriage there was a fall out and the respondent was compelled to move out of her matrimonial home. 4. It is further urged that the petitioner in residing with the her parents in District Ayodhya. The petitioner has instituted proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. which culminated in a criminal complaint. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Dowry Act. However, in both the proceedings i.e. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the respondent has not put in appearance nor any maintenance has been awarded. 5. It is further urged that in order to harass the petitioner the respondent has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is engaging the attention of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Pratapgarh registered as Case No.325 of 2022. 6. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has put in appearance and also moved an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act wherein the Court by means of order dated 13.02.2024 has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month. However, the respondent has not paid even a penny. 7. It is urged that the petitioner does not have robust family support system for her to contest the proceedings at Pratapgarh and in the aforesaid circumstances, it will be appropriate that the suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act may be transferred from the Pratapgrah to District Ayodhay. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the petitioner herself has not been attending the proceedings before the family court in Ayodhya. There is no denial of non payment of maintenance but since the petitioner herself has not appeared in the Court, consequently the same was not paid. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the respondent is ready to mediate. However, it is the lack of willingness on the part of the petitioner that the mediation is being declined. 10. It is also urged that in order to harass the respondent the petitioner has moved the instant petition and as such the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 12. Noticing the aforesaid as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in 2002 (10) SCC 480, in the case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686, in the case of Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589 and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 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 and in such circumstances considering the fact that the petitioner does not have any independent source of income and proceedings under Section 9 are pending before the appropriate court in Pratapgarh whereas certain proceedings as mentioned above has already been initiated by the petitioner in such circumstances, it will be appropriate that the proceedings of Original Suit No.325 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Principal Judge Family Court, Pratapgar be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ayodhya who shall consider and decide the same after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment preferably within a period of eight months from the date the party appears before the court concerned. 13. In case if any of the parties misuse the liberty and procrastinate the litigation, the court concerned shall be well within to impose appropriate costs progressly in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj and another, (2010) 8 SCC 1. 14. With the aforesaid the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench