A wife’s financial hardship and travel burden may justify transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant sought transfer of Family Suit No. 125 of 2025 from the Family Court, Amreli, to the Family Court, Junagadh.

She submitted that she had no substantial source of income, faced difficulty meeting the costs of attending proceedings, and that Amreli was approximately 100 kilometres from Junagadh.

The respondent opposed the application.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the Court to transfer proceedings where the ends of justice so demand.

In matrimonial transfer applications, the Court should consider the parties’ economic circumstances, social context, and ability to attend proceedings; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience is a relevant consideration.

The Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Shah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, also recognises that transfer may be appropriate to address practical hardship and, where related proceedings raise common issues, to avoid multiplicity and conflicting decisions.

The Court further referred to Article 15(3) of the Constitution and the principle that protective measures may be used to secure substantive equality in access to legal remedies.

Applying Section 24 and the principles in N.C.V. Aishwarya, the Court considered the applicant’s asserted financial hardship and the distance involved in attending the Amreli court.

It treated the applicant’s ability to access the remedy as the relevant consideration, without addressing the merits of the matrimonial dispute.

On that basis, it concluded that the ends of justice warranted transfer; it also directed that any related proceedings be heard together as far as possible to avoid duplicative trials and conflicting decisions.

The Court requested the receiving court to endeavour to hear all proceedings together, if any, so far as possible. Rule was made absolute accordingly.