A matrimonial case may be transferred to the wife’s forum when her restitution suit is pending there.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 CPC of Matrimonial Case No. 84 of 2025, filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code before the Family Court, Uttarkashi, to the Family Court, Dehradun.

The applicant had filed a separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 21 of the Code in Dehradun.

She submitted that she lived with her ailing parents in Dehradun, that her witnesses were also there, and that travelling to Uttarkashi was difficult.

The parties were employed by the same department, with the applicant posted in Dehradun and the respondent in Uttarkashi.

The respondent opposed transfer, relying on video-conferencing facilities and the inconvenience of engaging new counsel in Dehradun

1. Whether the matrimonial case pending at Uttarkashi should be transferred to Dehradun in light of the applicant’s circumstances and the related restitution petition pending there

2. Whether the respondent’s convenience and the availability of video-conferencing outweighed the grounds advanced for transfer

Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the interests of justice warrant it.

In deciding a matrimonial transfer application, the relative convenience of both parties is relevant; the court may also consider the wife’s particular difficulties, the location of a related proceeding and witnesses, and whether video-conferencing can mitigate inconvenience.

The judgment refers generally to the principle that both parties’ convenience should be considered but identifies no specific Supreme Court precedent

The Court considered the applicant’s difficulty travelling from Dehradun to Uttarkashi, her residence with her ailing parents, the location of her witnesses, and the pending restitution petition in Dehradun.

It accepted that the respondent’s convenience also mattered, but found that he could attend proceedings in Dehradun and could use video-conferencing on dates when personal attendance was not required.

In these circumstances, transferring the case would best serve the interests of justice

The respondent was permitted to appear by video-conferencing on dates when his personal appearance was not required; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of