A matrimonial suit may be transferred to the wife’s residence when distant travel causes substantial hardship.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 108 of 2026, instituted by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Family Court at Surat to the Family Court at Morbi.

The applicant was residing with her minor daughter and parents at Morbi, had no permanent source of income, and alleged that the husband was not paying her or the child’s expenses.

She contended that travelling approximately 440 kilometres to Surat would cause substantial hardship and financial difficulty.

Although duly served on 2 June 2026 and granted a further opportunity, the opponent-husband did not appear or contest the application.

Whether Family Suit No. 108 of 2026 should be transferred under Section 24 CPC from the Family Court at Surat to the Family Court at Morbi on account of the applicant-wife’s residence, financial circumstances, and the hardship of travelling with her minor child.

Whether the balance of convenience and comparative inconvenience justified exercising the Court’s discretionary power in favour of the applicant despite the opponent’s non-appearance.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Court considered the principle that the wife’s convenience, particularly where she is responsible for a minor child and lacks independent financial means, is a significant factor in assessing the balance of convenience.

The Court relied upon Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, as cited authorities supporting a transfer where the wife would face substantial inconvenience in attending proceedings at the existing venue.

The Court also recognised that participation through video conferencing may mitigate inconvenience, subject to the requirements of particular stages of the proceedings.

The Court found that the applicant-wife was residing at Morbi with her minor child, had no permanent income, and would have to travel approximately 440 kilometres to attend proceedings at Surat.

These circumstances established considerable personal, logistical, and financial hardship.

By contrast, the opponent had not appeared despite service and therefore had not placed any inconvenience or objection before the Court.

Applying the principles governing matrimonial transfer applications and weighing the comparative inconvenience, the Court concluded that the hardship to the applicant was substantially greater and that the interests of justice favoured transfer.

The Court additionally preserved the opponent’s ability to seek video-conferencing facilities before the transferee Family Court.

Family Suit No. 108 of 2026 was directed to be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the Family Court at Morbi.

The opponent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the Family Court’s discretion and the requirement of physical presence at particular stages.