# Ayushi Singh v. Dharmendra Kumar

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1355
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-17
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Civil) No. 141 of 2024
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ayushi-singh-v-dharmendra-kumar-54173
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

2 All. Ayushi Singh Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
1355
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 141 of 2024

Ayushi Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Dharmendra Kumar ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether, in absence of objection by the opposite party, transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section
24 CPC was justified on the ground of inconvenience and hardship to the applicant-wife;
(ii) Whether conduct of the opposite party during mediation and proceedings could be taken into account
while exercising discretion under Section 24 CPC.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Non-filing of
objection:

Held: Where despite opportunity no objection or reply is filed by the opposite party and the matter is decided
on the basis of uncontroverted pleadings of the applicant- Court may proceed to adjudicate the transfer
application on available material - Absence of contest lends credence to the assertions of hardship made by
the applicant. [Paras 2-3, 14]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer - Matrimonial dispute - Convenience of wife:

Held: In matrimonial disputes, convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration - Where the applicantwife has no independent source of income, has no one to escort her and is required to travel long distance to
attend proceedings, the transfer deserves to be allowed - Socio-economic realities and access to justice
justify such transfer. [Paras 7, 21]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer - Conduct of parties - Abuse of process:

Held: Conduct of the opposite party in frustrating mediation proceedings, withdrawing settlement amount and
taking advantage of interim protection reflects malafide intention and abuse of process of Court - Such
conduct can be taken into account while exercising discretion under Section 24 CPC. [Para 19]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer - Mediation proceedings - Effect of failure:

Held: Failure of mediation and subsequent conduct of the opposite party defeating settlement process
reinforce the necessity of judicial intervention to prevent injustice and ensure fair adjudication. [Paras 12, 19]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer - Application of principles:
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Where the applicant-wife is financially dependent, faces threat and hardship, and the opposite party
neither contests the application nor shows prejudice, the case is fit for transfer - Accordingly, proceedings
pending at Agra were liable to be transferred to Unnao. [Paras 21-22]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Costs - Imposition:
Held: Considering the inconvenience, harassment and conduct of the opposite party, costs of Rs.50,000/-
were imposed upon him payable to the applicant-wife - In default, recovery was directed as arrears of land
revenue. [Paras 24-25]

Transfer application allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374 - relied on; Fatima v.
Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez), AIR 2009 SC 1773 -relied on; Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and
another, (2001) 10 SCC 41 -relied on; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR 2022
SC 4318 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.

List of Keywords
Transfer of proceedings; Matrimonial dispute; Convenience of wife; Unopposed application; Mediation failure;
Abuse of process; Costs; Financial hardship; Access to justice.

Case Arising From
Case No. 71 of 2024 (Dharmendra Kumar Versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) pending before the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Agra.

Appearance for Parties
For Appellant: Sri Akash Deep Singh
For Respondent: Sri Sudhir Shukla.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. Sri Akash Deep Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Shukla, learned
counsel for the opposite party are present.

2. This Court repeatedly allowed time to the learned counsel for the opposite party to file
objection but till date, no objection has been filed.

3. Today, on the matter being taken up, Sri Sudhir Shukla Advocate, who appears for the
opposite party, at the very outset, stated that despite his best efforts, he could not get any
instructions from his client (opposite party), as such, he is unable to file any reply or objection on
behalf of the opposite party. Thus, the Court proceeds to dispose of the present Application on the
basis of the material available on record.

4. The present application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking
transfer of Case No. 71 of 2024 (Dharmendra Kumar Versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) filed by the
2 All. Ayushi Singh Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
1357
opposite party under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Agra to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at District Unnao.

5. The case in brief as put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the
applicant was married to the Opposite Party on 01.12.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the
time of marriage, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred through RTGS along with various
customary gifts by the applicant's parents and relatives. After marriage, the applicant initially lived
peacefully at her matrimonial house, but subsequently, she was subjected to physical and mental
harassment, by the opposite party and his family members, for want of dowry and ultimately the
applicant was forcefully ousted from her matrimonial house.

6. It is pleaded on behalf the applicant that on 09.01.2024, the Opposite Party instituted a
divorce petition dated 09.01.2024 before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra.
Furthermore, on 28.05.2024, the Opposite Party threatened the applicant with dire consequences,
including life threat, in order to stop her from participating in the Court proceedings.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on account of serious threats
from the opposite party and also due to the financial constraints as well as unavoidable personal
difficulties, the applicant, being a lady, having no one in her family to escort her to attend the Court
proceedings on every date fixed in the case; preferred the instant Application under section 24 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying therein for the transfer the case from Agra, which is
approximately 300 Kms. away to Unnao.

8. As is evident from the record that with the consent of the parties the matter was initially
referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court vide order dated 04.02.2025. For
ready reference the same is quoted herein below:

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Krishan Tiwari, Advocate holding brief
on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party.

2. Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking
transfer of Case No.71 of 2024; (Dharmendra Kumar versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) instituted by
opposite party under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, from the Court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Agra to equally competent Family Court, Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions submits that the matter may
be referred to mediation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party also on the basis of instructions concedes
to the aforesaid prayer.

5. In view thereof, applicant and opposite party are directed to appear before Mediation
and Conciliation Center of this Court on 25.02.2025.

6. Endeavor shall be made by the Center to file its report within a period of four weeks.
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. List this case on 27.03.2025.

8. Till next date of listing, proceedings of Case No.71 of 2024; (Dharmendra Kumar
versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra shall
remain stayed."

9. It is testified by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit dated 15.10.2025 that
mediation proceeding started on 25.02.2025 and the parties agreed for settlement on Rs.32,00,000,
out of the said amount, the respondent deposited only Rs.16,00,000 on 25.07.2025 by way of
'demand draft' and took a month's time for depositing rest of the amount on 25.08.2025. It is
averred by the applicant that during the pendency of the mediation proceeding, the opposite party
filed a case before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. having Application U/S 482 No. 7060 of
2025, wherein this Court taking into consideration the ongoing mediation proceedings, stayed the
criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao vide order dated 27.08.2025.
After passing of the aforesaid stay/order the opposite party herein just to defeat the mediation
proceedings immediately withdrew the said amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-,

10. It is very emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to the
above-mentioned vicious conduct of the opposite party, the applicant has suffered serious mental
agony as she was made to run from pillar to post for doing 'Pairvi' of the cases.

11. For ready reference the relevant part of the Order dated 27.08.2025 passed on Application
under section 482 having case No. 7060 of 2025 is extracted herein below:

"Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023, has been filed
with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet no. 01/2024, dated 07.08.2024, under sections-498-A,
323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dahi, District
Unnao, as well as Bailable Warrant Order Dated 11.04.2025, passed by Learned J/JD/FTC/LAW,
Unnao, in Case No. 1460/2024, 'State Vs Dharmendra Kumar', arising out of Case Crime No.
0084/2024, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Dahi, District - Unnao.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the instant matter is arising out
of a matrimonial dispute and a divorce petition was instituted by the applicant no. 1,Dharmendra
Kumar, whereafter, the transfer application was moved before this court bearing Transfer
Application No.(TACL) 141 of 2024, wherein the order dated 04-02-2025 was passed and the
proceeding of the divorce case was stayed and the matter was referred to the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this court, which is still going on and in pursuance thereof, the applicant no.
1 has deposited Rs. 16 Lac in the form of demand draft in favour of the informant/opposite party
no. 2 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court.

He argued that the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, under sections 498A,323,504,506 of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are still continuing and since
2 All. Ayushi Singh Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
1359
the matter is pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, thus, the
proceedings of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024, may be stayed.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

In view of the aforesaid, matter requires consideration.

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within a week.

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 06-10-2025.

In the meantime, the opposite parties may file their Counter Affidavits.

Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
0084/2024, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Dahi, District - Unnao, shall remain stayed so far as the present applicants are concerned."

12. Mediation Report dated 03.09.2025, reflects failure of mediation. On the failure of the
mediation proceedings a report to that effect was sent by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
was sent this Court for adjudication.

13. After the re-start of the adjudicatory process, this Court on the request of the learned
counsel for the opposite party granted him sufficient opportunity to file objections/reply in the
matter. However, no objection/reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, till date.

14. In the absence of any reply from the side of the opposite party, this Court proceeded to
decide the instant matter on the basis of the pleadings/averments made in the present Application
duly supported by affidavit.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case relied upon the judgements passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Versus Ashok Kishinchand
Sadhwani, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1374, and also in Fatima Versus Jafri Syed Husain
(Parvez), reported in AIR 2009 SC 1773.

16. In the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for transfer filed at the
instance of the petitioner wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 13B of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 seeking transfer of Petition No. 83 of 2006 (Ashok
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kishinchand Sadhwani v. Anjali Ashok Sadhwani) now pending in the Family Court at Indore to
the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials
on record and considering the fact that the distance between Mumbai, Maharashtra and Indore,
Madhya Pradesh is about 900 kms and also considering the fact that the petitioner wife has no one
in her family to escort her during her journey from Mumbai to Indore, we feel it proper to transfer
the case from Family Court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.
Accordingly, the case being Petition No. 83 of 2006 stands transferred from Family Court of
Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court of Bandra at Mumbai, Maharashtra."

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fatima (supra) has been pleased to pass the
following order:-

"1. This is a petition for transfer of Petition No. A-55 of 2008 pending before the Family
Court at Aurangabad Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez) v. Fatima to the Civil Court at Srinagar, in the
State of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials
on record and considering the fact that the petitioner wife is only 22 years of age and therefore, it
would be difficult for her to attend the court proceedings at Aurangabad from Srinagar.
Accordingly, we allow this petition for transfer of the aforesaid case now pending before the
Family Court at Aurangabad to the Civil Court at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir for final disposal.
The learned Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad is directed to transmit the case records of the
aforesaid case to the Family Court at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir within a period of two months
from the date of supply of a copy of this order to him."

18. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding in the case of Sumita Singh versus Kumar
Sanjay and another reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 41 in paragraph no. 3 of its
judgment has observed as under:

"3. It is the husband's suit against the wife. It is the wife's convenience that, therefore,
must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition
absolute."

19. Taking into consideration the uncontroverted facts and particularly the fact that once the
opposite party expressed readiness for the settlement of the dispute through mediation and the
Court accepting the request of the parties, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court, where on 25.02.2025 the opposite party agreed to pay Rs.32 Lacs, and
submitted a bank-draft of Rs.16 Lacs on 21.07.2025 out of the total amount before the Mediation
Centre of this court and sought further time to deposit the balance amount on 25.08.2025. At the
same time, on the other hand, he preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the
Court, which was registered as Application U/S 482 No. 7060 of 2025, wherein the Court granted
stay of the proceeding of Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024 vide order dated 27.08.2025 in his favour
on the premise of pendency of mediation proceeding going on before the Mediation and
2 All. Ayushi Singh Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
1361
Conciliation Centre of this Court. From the perusal of the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this
Court, it is evident that the Court by taking note of the fact that the opposite party herein has
deposited Rs.16 Lacs in the form of Demand Draft in favour of the informant/applicant herein
passed the stay order, in favour of the opposite party. Taking advantage of the protection in the
criminal proceeding vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this court, the opposite party-husband
withdrew the aforesaid amount of Rs.16 Lacs on 03.09.2025 from the Mediation Centre causing
mediation process to fail. There was no occasion for the opposite party to withdrew the same
knowingly well that his withdrawal of amount deposited as part payment towards settlement would
defeat the mediation process. This strategical move on the part of the opposite party-husband goes
to show his malafide intention to defeat the process of law and is nothing but abuse of Court.
Further, the statement of the learned counsel for the opposite party that despite his best efforts, the
opposite party is not providing any instructions to him to defend his case, goes to show his
disrespectful behaviour towards the Court's proceeding.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S.
Saravana Karthik Sha reported in AIR 2022 SC 4318 as held as under:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other
proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of
transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the
social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage
and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and
under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing
socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must
be looked at while considering transfer."

21. In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted herein above,
this Court taking into consideration the facts pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is
a lady aged about 31 years, having no independent source of income and having no one in her
family to escort her during the journey between Unnao and Agra to regularly attend the
proceedings of the case filed by the opposite party under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 on each and every date, finds it to be a reasonable case for exercise of its power under Section
24 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the inconvenience caused to the applicant wife in the above
uncontradicted facts of the present case is evident and cannot be ignored or disbelieved.

22. The instant transfer application is accordingly allowed. The Case No. 71 of 2024
(Dharmendra Kumar Versus Smt. Ayushi Singh) filed by the opposite party under Section 13(1)(a)
of Hindu Marriage Act, be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, at Unnao.

23. The concerned Court at Agra shall ensure early transmission of the record to the learned
Family Court at Unnao, which shall proceed in the matter from the stage it has been transferred to
the said Court.
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Looking to the inconvenience caused to the applicant-wife as discussed herein above, this
court is inclined to levy costs on the opposite party-husband of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) to
be paid to the applicant-wife, who appears to have endured suffering during the pendency of the
present transfer application.

25. Costs as directed shall be paid by the opposite party-husband to the applicant-wife within a
period of one month from today. If the costs are not paid, the same shall be recovered in
accordance with law as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Agra and shall be paid over to the
applicant-wife. A copy of the receipt/acknowledgement of payment of costs shall be placed before
the Transferee Court by the opposite party-husband.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1362
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 940 of 2023

Smt. Akansha Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
Shikhar Saxena ...Opposite Party

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be
allowed on the basis of consent or non-opposition of the opposite party;
(ii) Whether, in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife and attending socio-economic circumstances
justify transfer of proceedings to another jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of proceedings - Scope and nature of
power:

Held: Section 24 CPC confers wide, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction upon the Court to transfer
proceedings at any stage to secure ends of justice - The power is supervisory and remedial in character and
intended to prevent hardship, inconvenience or failure of justice. [Para 7, 13.1]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer - Dominus litis - Limitation of principle:
Held: Though plaintiff is dominus litis and entitled to choose forum, such right is not absolute - The Court
may override such choice where insistence on chosen forum results in hardship, inequity or denial of access to
justice - Section 24 CPC constitutes statutory exception to the doctrine. [Paras 8, 13.2]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Transfer by consent - Permissibility:
Held: Transfer of proceedings on the basis of consent or non-opposition of the opposite party is legally
permissible - Procedural right to object to forum can be waived - Where parties are ad idem, apprehension
of prejudice stands substantially mitigated. [Paras 9, 13.3-13.4]