Jharkhand High Court
Tr.Pet.CVL/96/2025 of SONI KUMARI @ MINAKSHI KUMARI Vs SACHIN KUMAR on 15 April 2026
Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10826 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025 --------- Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari ..… Petitioner Versus Sachin Kumar ….. Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025
---------
Soni Kumari @ Minakshi Kumari
..… Petitioner
Versus Sachin Kumar
….. Respondent
---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
----------
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.
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.
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.
4. However, learned counsel for the Opposite Party (i.e. husband) has submitted that Ramgarh is not far away from Ranchi and the petitioner could attend the Court proceeding and return back on the same day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for transfer of Original
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.
11. Thus, this Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. 96 of 2025 is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. However, the opposite party-Husband is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner- Wife on each and every date for coming to Ramgarh to attend the Court proceeding.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 15.04.2026