BHAVIKA W/O JIGAR KASUNDRA D/O RAMESHBHAI RAJPARA vs JIGAR JAYANTILAL KASUNDRA

C/MCA/2987/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240888112025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 2987 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHAVIKA W/O JIGAR KASUNDRA D/O RAMESHBHAI RAJPARA
Versus
JIGAR JAYANTILAL KASUNDRA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 23/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. This Court vide its order dated 03.07.2026 issued
notice of Rule to opponent, which is duly served on
27.07.2026. Though served, no one appeared for the
opponent despite being given sufficient opportunity.
2. This application filed under Section 24 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) by the applicant-wife is
seeking transfer of Family Suit No.737 of 2025 filed by
opponent pending before the Family Court, Rajkot to the
Family Court, Surat.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:23:33 IST 2026

C/MCA/2987/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240888112025)
3. Heard Mr. Dipesh D. Soni, learned advocate for the
applicant at length.
3.1. Mr. Soni, learned advocate states that the applicant
happens to be wife of the opponent and is residing at her
parental home in Surat along with her minor child,
whereas the opponent has instituted a family suit before
the Family Court, Rajkot which is far away from the place
of the applicant, the distance between Surat to Rajkot is
about 265kms one go. It is submitted that the respondent
is not paying any maintenance for the applicant and
minor child and it would cause great hardship for her to
attend the proceeding at Rajkot.
3.2. Making the above submission, Mr. Soni, learned
advocate, would request this Court to allow the present
application.
4. At the outset, it is required to be observed that the
averments made in the application are remained
uncontroverted.
5. Apart from the aforesaid, considering the averments
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:23:33 IST 2026

C/MCA/2987/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240888112025)
made in the application and on perusing the material on
record, it appears that distance is around 265 kms from
Surat to Rajkot. So, it would cause great hardship and
inconvenience to the applicant to attend the proceeding
instituted by opponent at Rajkot. Apart from the aforesaid
fact, the applicant is also required to look after her minor
child aged about two and half years.
6. 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 and (iii) Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev
Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479.
7. Thus, considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the
inconvenience that may cause to the applicant vis-à-vis
the opponent which is much higher this Court is inclined
to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:23:33 IST 2026

C/MCA/2987/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240888112025)
8. In the backdrop as aforesaid, present application
succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, Family Suit
No.737 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Rajkot
is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Surat.
9. It is 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-8(A). Rule is made
absolute, accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:23:33 IST 2026