A wife’s caregiving responsibilities and travel hardship justify transferring matrimonial proceedings to her place of residence.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 4368 of 2025, instituted by her husband and pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, to the Family Court at Bhavnagar.

She lived at Bhavnagar with the parties’ minor child, approximately 180 kilometres from Ahmedabad, and had also initiated maintenance proceedings against the husband before the Family Court at Bhavnagar.

The husband was served but did not appear, despite the matter being adjourned once as a last opportunity.

Whether the husband’s Family Suit No. 4368 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Family Court at Bhavnagar under Section 24 CPC, given the applicant-wife’s circumstances and the relative hardship involved.

Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding where the circumstances warrant it.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the comparative inconvenience to the parties, including the wife’s residence, responsibility for a minor child, and the distance required to attend court.

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, as relevant Supreme Court authorities on transfer applications.

The Court treated the applicant’s pleaded circumstances as uncontroverted because the husband, though served, did not appear.

It found that requiring her to travel approximately 180 kilometres from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad while caring for a minor child would cause substantial hardship, particularly since maintenance proceedings between the parties were already pending at Bhavnagar.

Weighing the parties’ relative inconvenience and applying the principles guiding transfer discretion, the Court concluded that the balance favoured the applicant.

It added that the husband could seek to participate by video conference, subject to physical attendance being required at a particular stage.

It further directed that, if the husband requested to join proceedings by video conference or online mode, the Family Court should allow it unless his physical presence was required at a particular stage.