# Shikha Sharma v. Dimpal Babu Gangwar - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1589 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-09 - **Case number:** Transfer Application (Civil) No. 465 of 2025 - **Bench:** Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shikha-sharma-v-dimpal-babu-gangwar-54368 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 4 All. Shikha Sharma Vs. Dimpal Babu Gangwar 1589 18.08.2025. It was submitted to the higher Authorities for final orders of the State Government and rejected on 18.08.2025. It was communicated to the petitioner by the State Government's radiogram dated 19.08.2025. In the rejoinder affidavit, filed in response to the State Government's counter affidavit, it is not at all pointed out by the petitioner as to where unexplained delay occurred, which might vitiate the detention order. 46. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that there is no infirmity in the order impugned, directing the petitioner's detention under the NSA. 47. This habeas corpus writ petition fails and is dismissed. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1589 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Transfer Application (Civil) No. 465 of 2025 Shikha Sharma ...Applicant Versus Dimpal Babu Gangwar ...Opposite Party Issue for Consideration Whether the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed, seeking transfer of the divorce case pending before the Family Court, Bareilly is liable to be allowed on the basis "No Objection" expressed by the Opposite Party. Head Notes The Code of Civil Procedure-1908- Section 24; The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13 (1)- Applicant is stated to be presently residing at her parental home along with her old mother and minor child- Attending the proceedings at Bareilly would cause inconvenience and grave hardship to her- In view of the hardship that has been pleaded by the applicant and the categorical "No Objection" expressed on behalf of the Opposite Party, the Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC. The transfer sought, being by consent of the parties and in furtherance of justice, deserves to be allowed. (E-15) (Para 9) Case Law Cited Smt. Akansha Saxena v. Shikhar Saxena, 2026 (3) ADJ 104; Smt. Arju @ Vimal v. Umakant Parasar, 2026 (3) ADJ 66 List of Acts The Code of Civil Procedure-1908; The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES List of Keywords Section 24 CPC; No Objection" expressed on behalf of the Opposite Party; Application allowed. Case Arising From Present application has been preferred by the Applicant-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Case No.723 of 2025 instituted under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar. Appearances for Parties Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sayujya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Pandey, Rang Nath Pandey (Delivered by Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Sayuja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rang Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Present application has been preferred by the Applicant-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Case No.723 of 2025 (Dimpal Babu Gangwar vs. Sikha Sharma), instituted under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. The order-sheet of the case indicates that on 17.07.2025, when the case was taken up, this Court, upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant that she is residing with her old mother and child and is dependent upon her mother and the distance from Bareilly to the residence of the applicant is about 250 kms. the financial condition of the applicant is not good to do pairvi of the case, and the balance of convenience also lays in favour of the applicant, and if the applicant is allowed to proceed at Bareilly she would suffer serious prejudice, directed issuance of notice and stayed the further proceedings of the divorce suit. 4. The facts as pleaded on behalf of the applicant-wife indicate that the opposite party filed a petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, seeking a declaration that the marriage dated 20.11.2013 be dissolved. The said petition was registered as Case No.723 of 2025 (Dimple Babu Gangwar vs. Shikha Sharma). Notice of the said proceedings has been served upon the applicant and the matter is pending before the Family Court, Bareilly. 5. The applicant is stated to be presently residing at her parental home along with her old mother and minor child. According to the applicant, attending the proceedings at Bareilly would cause inconvenience and grave hardship to her. In these circumstances, the present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed, seeking transfer of the divorce case pending before the Family Court, Bareilly. 6. It is submitted that the divorce petition has been instituted by the opposite party at Bareilly with a view to cause harassment to the applicant. 4 All. Smt. Vinita Vs. Vivek Kumar 1591 7. Counsel appearing for the opposite party, without admitting the allegations made by the applicant, has very fairly submitted that he has instructions to state that the opposite party does not object to the transfer of the case to Gautam Budh Nagar, as sought by the applicant. 8. This Court, in its recent decisions in Smt. Akansha Saxena v. Shikhar Saxena, 2026 (3) ADJ 104, and Smt. Arju @ Vimal v. Umakant Parasar, 2026 (3) ADJ 66 has observed that in matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife must be looked into; the cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC being that the ends of justice should be subserved. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, and particularly in view of the hardship that has been pleaded by the applicant and the categorical "No Objection" expressed on behalf of the Opposite Party, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC. The transfer sought, being by consent of the parties and in furtherance of justice, deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Transfer Application is allowed with the following directions : (i) The proceedings of Case No.723 of 2025 (Dimpal Babu Gangwar vs. Shikha Sharma), instituted under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are hereby withdrawn from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly and transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar. (ii) The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly is directed to transmit the entire case record to the Transferee Court at District Gautam Budh Nagar within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iii) The Transferee Court shall proceed with the matter from the stage at which it was transferred and shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1591 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Transfer Application (Civil) No. 620 of 2023 Smt. Vinita ...Applicant Versus Vivek Kumar ...Opposite Party Issue for Consideration