A matrimonial suit must be transferred when no Section 19 territorial-jurisdiction ground supports its present court.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 592 of 2025 from the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the concerned court at Mehsana.

She submitted that she had left the matrimonial home in 2015, that the parties’ child was born at Mehsana in 2018, and that she was responsible for the child’s care; maintenance proceedings were also pending at Mehsana.

The husband opposed transfer, stating that he worked as a homeguard and was willing to bear her travel expenses.

The Court noted that the marriage was solemnised at Piludara, Mehsana, and that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 29 August 2015.

1. Whether Family Suit No. 592 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the concerned court at Mehsana under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the parties’ circumstances and the applicant’s responsibility for the minor child.

2. Whether Gandhinagar was a proper venue for the husband’s matrimonial petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings between competent courts.

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifies the courts in which a petition under that Act may be presented, including the place where the marriage was solemnised, where the respondent resides when the petition is presented, where the parties last resided together, and—where the wife is the petitioner—where she resides on that date.

The Court also referred to Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, without setting out their specific propositions in the judgment.

The Court considered that the wife had left the matrimonial home more than ten years before the family suit was filed and that the marriage had been solemnised at Mehsana.

It concluded that none of the conditions in Section 19 justified the husband’s institution of the suit at Gandhinagar.

It also weighed the wife’s responsibility for the minor child against the husband’s employment as a homeguard, noting that he could participate by video conference.

These circumstances supported transfer to Mehsana.

The Court requested that the transferred suit and the wife’s pending maintenance proceedings be heard by the same court and permitted the husband to seek a common hearing date.

He could also request to participate online, subject to any requirement for physical attendance.

Rule was made absolute.