RATIBEN W/O VISHNUBHAI BHARWAD ADN D/O VIRAMBHAI LAMBARIA (BHARWAD) vs VISHNUBHAI @ VASTABHAI THOBHANBHAI BANBHAVA (BHARWAD)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 1673 of 2025
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1675 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RATIBEN W/O VISHNUBHAI BHARWAD ADN D/O VIRAMBHAI LAMBARIA
(BHARWAD)
Versus
VISHNUBHAI @ VASTABHAI THOBHANBHAI BANBHAVA (BHARWAD)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 16/10/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Dipmala S. Desai, learned advocate for
the applicant and Mr. Manish S. Shah, learned advocate
for the opponent.
2. Since the issue germane to both these applications is
common, with the consent of learned advocates for the
respective parties, both these applications are heard
together and decided by way of this common judgment.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
3. The applicant happens to be wife of the opponent
who filed an application under Section 7 read with
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (herein
after referred to as " the Act, 1890") against the opponent
before the Family Court, Himmatnagar. Whereas the
opponent has also instituted a family suit under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the applicant
at Family Court, Himmatnagar. Since the applicant is
residing along with her parents at Rajkot, she has
approached this Court by way of this application filed
under Section 24 of CPC to transfer the aforesaid
proceeding from Family Court, Himmatnagar to Family
Court, Rajkot.
4. Ms. Desai, learned advocate, appearing for the
applicant, would submit that the applicant is an illiterate
lady who is residing far away from her children and to get
custody of her children who are currently possessed by
the opponent/husband – father, she has instituted
proceedings under the Act, 1890 at Family Court,
Himmatnagar. It is submitted that the opponent instituted
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
adverse proceeding before the Family Court,
Himmatnagar and considering the distance between
Himmatnagar and Rajkot which is around 300kms, it
causes great hardship and inconvenience to the applicant
to attend the proceeding instituted by the opponent.
4.1. It is further submitted that the applicant has also
instituted maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., Domestic Violence complaint against the
opponent which are pending before the concerned Court
at Rajkot and there is an FIR filed against the opponent
under Section 498A pending before the competent Court
at Rajkot.
4.2. Making the above submissions, Ms. Desai, learned
advocate, would request this Court to consider the relief
prayed by the applicant in these applications.
5. Per contra , Mr. Shah, learned advocate, appearing
for the opponent, has vehemently opposed these
applications contending inter alia that since the applicant
herself instituted a proceeding under the Act, 1890 at
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
Family Court in Himmatnagar and such the proceeding is
required to be attended by the applicant, there is no
purpose served to transfer the proceeding instituted by
the opponent from Family Court, Himmatnagar to Family
Court, Rajkot. It is submitted that the applicant can very
well attend both these proceedings through video
conference which is available. It is further submitted that
the opponent is also ready to pay reasonable travelling
expenses to the applicant if she is personally required to
travel to attend the proceeding instituted by the
opponent.
5.1. Making the above submissions, Mr. Shah, learned
advocate, would request this Court to reject these
applications.
6. No other and further submissions have been
advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. Having heard learned Counsels for the respective
parties and considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
herself instituted proceeding under the Act, 1890 before
the Family Court, Himmatnagar and such proceeding is
required to be attended by her. It is not disputed by
Ms. Desai, learned advocate for the applicant, as per the
provisions of the Act, 1890, the applications seeking
custody is required to be filed before the Court where the
children are residing, i.e., Family Court, Himmatnagar.
8. If such would be the case, according to my view, the
proceeding instituted by the applicant under the
provisions of the Act, 1890 cannot be transferred from
Family Court, Himmatnagar to Family Court, Rajkot,
which has no jurisdiction to decide the lis between the
parties. Apart from the aforesaid dispute between the
parties, so far as the welfare of child is concerned, it is
always a paramount consideration for any Court.
9. Since the application was instituted by the applicant
under the Act, 1890 and to adjudicate such application,
the Court concerned who has jurisdiction is required to
interact with the child before passing any order, it is more
desirable that it should be heard and adjudicated by the
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
Court within whose jurisdiction the children are residing,
i.e., Family Court, Himmatnagar. Moreover, as per
Section 24(5) of CPC also, this Court cannot transfer the
application instituted by the applicant to Family Court
Rajkot as prayed for. Once the application instituted by
the applicant before the Family Court, Himmatnagar is
not transferred to Family Court Rajkot, the applicant is
required to attend such proceeding before the Family
Court Himmatnagar, then no purpose will be served by
transferring the suit proceeding instituted by the
opponent against the applicant, which is otherwise
pending before the Family Court Himmatnagar. Rather
both the proceedings can be ordered to be heard and
decided by the same Family Judge at the earliest.
10. As far as the travelling expenses is concerned,
Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the opponent, under the
instruction of his client, would state that in a case where
the applicant personally attends the proceeding before
the Family Court, Himmatnagar, on such occasion, the
opponent will pay the travelling expenses of Rs. 1,500/- to
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
the applicant. According to me, it would be reasonable for
the applicant to meet with her travelling expenses to
attend the proceedings.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I am
not inclined to accept the prayer made by the applicant.
Nonetheless it is hereby observed that the Principal Judge
of Family Court may see to it that CMA-DC (Civil
Miscellaneous Application – District Court) No. 7 of 2024
filed by the applicant under Section 7 read with Section
25 of the Act, 1890 and Family Suit No. 102 of 2024
instituted by the opponent shall be heard and decided by
one Family Court, Himmatnagar. The Court concerned is
hereby requested to give a common date in both the
proceedings, whereby the applicant can attend both the
proceedings on the same day.
12. It is open for the applicant to request the Court
concerned to allow her to attend both the proceedings
through video conference. As and when such request will
be made, the same shall be accepted by the Family Court
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026
C/MCA/1673/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240459302025)
concerned, unless her physical presence is required for
her cross-examination or otherwise.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
having not found any merit in the application, both these
applications are rejected. Subject to extending the
cooperation and support by the parties, the Family Court
Himmatnagar is requested to expedite both the
proceedings and may decide it in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within one year from the date
of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:05:02 IST 2026