A wife’s convenience justifies transferring domestic violence proceedings to her place of residence.

The applicant-wife filed a criminal transfer application under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transfer of proceedings in Misc. Case No. 2517 of 2014, arising under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from the Court of the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat.

She submitted that she was serving as a Child Development Supervisor in Champawat and was responsible for the upbringing and schooling of her two sons, making repeated travel to Dehradun difficult and burdensome.

The respondent-husband opposed the transfer, stating that he was employed as a Gram Vikas Adhikari in Rudrapur, that other proceedings were pending in Dehradun and Rudrapur, and that he was willing to settle the matrimonial dispute.

The applicant stated that there was no scope for settlement.

Whether the proceedings pending before the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, ought to be transferred to Champawat on account of the applicant-wife’s employment, caregiving responsibilities and travel-related inconvenience.

Whether the respondent’s inconvenience and willingness to settle the dispute justified refusal of the transfer, and whether his participation could be facilitated through video conferencing.

The Court applied Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the transfer of criminal cases and proceedings.

The Court relied principally on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, for the principle that, in matrimonial proceedings, the wife’s convenience is an important and generally decisive consideration.

The proceedings themselves arose under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court found that the applicant was employed and residing in Champawat, while the case was pending in Dehradun, involving substantial travel between the two districts.

Her responsibility for raising and educating two sons created an additional practical burden.

The respondent did not dispute that the sons were residing with the applicant; his objections were based primarily on his own employment, the pendency of other cases, and his willingness to settle.

Applying the principle in Sumita Singh that the wife’s convenience should be given due weight in matrimonial disputes, the Court held that the balance of convenience and the interest of justice favoured transfer.

At the same time, it balanced the respondent’s inconvenience by permitting him to appear through video conferencing except when his personal presence was specifically required.

The respondent was granted liberty to appear through video conferencing on all dates except those requiring his personal presence.