SUNITA TIWARI W/O RAHUL MISHRA D/O RAMNIWAS TIWARI vs RAHUL KUMAR TULSIRAM MISHRA

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/MCA/1581/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240464762026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 1581 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUNITA TIWARI W/O RAHUL MISHRA D/O RAMNIWAS TIWARI
Versus
RAHUL KUMAR TULSIRAM MISHRA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR POOJAN V BAHRANI(12056) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 30/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Poojan V. Bahrani, learned advocate for
the applicant. Though served, none appeared for the
opponent.
2. The record suggests that the opponent was duly
served with the notice of rule on 19.08.2026. This Court
vide its order dated 09.10.2026 passed t he following
order:
“Though served, none appeared for the opponent.
As a last chance, stand over to 30.10.2026. ”
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:46 IST 2026

C/MCA/1581/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240464762026)
3. It appears that despite granting an opportunity to
the opponent to appear and respond to this application,
he chose not to appear and contest the matter.
Mr. Bahrani, learned advocate for the applicant, would
reiterate his submissions which was advanced by him on
30.06.2026. The order dated 30.06.2026 reads thus:
“1. Heard Mr. P. V. Buhrani, learned Advocate for the applicant.
2. At the outset, Mr. Buhrani, learned Advocate, would submit that
after the passing of the order by this Court on 20.02.2025 in Misc.
Civil Application (For Transfer) No. 498 of 2025, the applicant had
preferred an application below Exh. 20 in Family Suit No. 142 of
2024 seeking travelling and other expenses, which came to be
allowed by the Family Court on 15.11.2025, but despite such order,
the applicant is not getting any travelling and other expenses as
ordered. It is submitted that in absence of such amount, it is difficult
for the applicant to travel from Vadodara to Ankleshwar and, as
such, this Court has reserved liberty in its aforesaid order to file an
appropriate application before this Court seeking transfer of suit
proceedings from the Family Court, Ankleshwar to the Family Court,
Vadodara. Mr. Buhrani, learned Advocate, would submit that specific
averments as regards the aforesaid facts are mentioned in paragraph
No. 3.13 in the present application.
3. Having heard Mr. Buhrani, learned Advocate and considering the
averments made in the application as well as the orders passed by
this Court as well as the Family Court as referred above, prima
facie, it appears that due to non-payment of the travelling expenses
and other amounts which have been ordered by the Family Court
vide order dated 15.11.2025, the applicant is not in a position to
defend the aforesaid family suit. Accordingly, the matter requires
consideration.
4. Issue Rule, returnable on 21.08.2026.
5. Ad-interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph No. 11(B) of
the application.”
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:46 IST 2026

C/MCA/1581/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240464762026)
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant and
taking note of the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2026
passed by this Court and so also averments made in the
application which are remained uncontroverted by the
opponent, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the
applicant in this application.
5. 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 and (ii) N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana
Karthik Sha - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 : 2022
LiveLaw (SC)
627.
6. In the backdrop as aforesaid, the present application
succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The Family Suit
No.142 of 2024, pending before the Family Court at
Ankleshwar, District – Bharuch is directed to be
transferred to the concerned Court at Vadodara.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:46 IST 2026

C/MCA/1581/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240464762026)
7. 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 is 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.
8. In view of the above, the present application is
allowed in terms of para 11(A). Rule is made absolute,
accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 00:00:46 IST 2026