SONAL W/O RITESH VISHWAKARMA D/O OMPRAKASH RAMGARIB VISHWAKARMA vs RITESH KAMALKISHOR VISHWAKARMA

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/MCA/1807/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240539492026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 1807 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SONAL W/O RITESH VISHWAKARMA D/O OMPRAKASH RAMGARIB
VISHWAKARMA
Versus
RITESH KAMALKISHOR VISHWAKARMA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HIRAL B OZA(5180) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANANTANAD SINGH FOR MS SM AHUJA(118) for the Opponent(s) No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 30/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Hiral B. Oza, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. Anantand Singh, learned advocate,
appearing on behalf of Ms. S. M. Ahuja, learned advocate
for the opponent.
2. This application is filed under Section 24 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking transfer
of Family Suit No. 178 of 2025 pending before the Family
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:50 IST 2026

C/MCA/1807/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240539492026)
Court at Gandhidham, Kutch to the concerned Court at
Dahod.
3. Ms. Oza, learned advocate, would submit that the
applicant happens to be wife of the opponent and resides
with her minor child at Dahod, whereas the opponent has
instituted a family suit before the Family Court,
Gandhidham. It is further submitted that the distance
between Dahod and Gandhidham is more than 425 km
one go and in such circumstances, it would cause great
hardship and inconvenience to the applicant to attend the
proceedings instituted by the opponent at Gandhidham.
3.1. Ms. Oza, learned advocate, would further submit that
the applicant has already preferred an application being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 531 of 2025 against the
opponent under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is
pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Dahod, where the opponent is required to attend the
proceedings.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:50 IST 2026

C/MCA/1807/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240539492026)
3.2. Making the above submissions, Ms. Oza, learned
advocate, would request this Court to allow the present
application.
4. Per contra , Mr. Singh, learned advocate, has
opposed this application and placed reliance upon the
reply filed by the opponent. It is submitted that the
opponent is ready to bear the travelling expenses of the
applicant and as such he had cleared all the arrears of
the maintenance as per the orders passed by the Family
Court in maintenance proceedings. It is submitted that
the opponent is required to look after his mother and
there is no other person in his family to look after and
take care of the mother.
5. Having heard learned Counsels for the respective
parties and considering the fact that the distance
between Dahod and Gandhidham is around 425 kms one
way which definitely causes great hardship and
inconvenience to the applicant viz-a-viz the opponent so
far as attending the suit proceeding is concerned. Apart
from that, the applicant is also required to take care of
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:50 IST 2026

C/MCA/1807/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240539492026)
her minor child residing with her at Dahod. It further
appears that though the opponent cleared the
maintenance, from the deposit receipt produced with the
reply shows that the opponent is not regularly paying
maintenance to the applicant which would be other
ground weighed with this Court not to accede to the
request of the opponent.
6. So far as taking care of the ailing mother is
concerned, the opponent can very well attend the
proceeding through video conference, whereby he is not
required to personally come and attend the proceeding
before the Family Court, Dahod which otherwise he must
have attended subject to maintenance proceeding
instituted by the applicant in past.
7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
(i) Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay - AIR 2002
SC 396, (ii) N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana
Karthik Sha - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 : 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 627.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:50 IST 2026

C/MCA/1807/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240539492026)
8. In the backdrop as aforesaid, present application
succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The Family Suit No.
178 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at
Gandhidham, Kutch is directed to be transferred to the
concerned Court at Dahod.
9. It is also open for the opponent to request the
concerned Court to join the proceedings through video
conferencing/online mode and if such a request will be
made by the opponent, the Court concerned may also
consider the same unless the physical presence of the
opponent is required to attend the proceedings at a
particular stage of proceedings.
10. In view of the above, the present application is
allowed in terms of paragraph-12(B). Rule is made
absolute, accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:50 IST 2026