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

The wife applied under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to transfer Family Suit No. 4 of 2026 from the Family Court at Morbi to the concerned Court at Bhachau.

She lived with her minor daughter at her parental home in Rapar, Kutch, approximately 100 kilometres from Morbi, and submitted that travelling to Morbi caused hardship.

She also relied on maintenance proceedings in which maintenance had been ordered; the husband had been imprisoned for non-payment and had recently been released after clearing the dues.

The husband opposed transfer, citing his financial condition and submitting that the wife could attend proceedings by video conference.

1. Whether the wife had established sufficient hardship and inconvenience to warrant transfer of the husband’s family suit under Section 24 CPC from Morbi to Bhachau.

2. Whether, following transfer, directions should be made to facilitate coordination of the family suit and the wife’s pending maintenance proceedings, and to permit the husband to seek remote participation.

Section 24 CPC empowers the Court to transfer proceedings; the Court exercised its discretion by weighing the parties’ respective inconvenience in light of the circumstances.

The Court 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 authorities on transfer applications.

The judgment does not set out a separate formulation of the principles from those decisions.

The Court found that the wife resided about 100 kilometres from Morbi and had responsibility for the welfare of her minor daughter, making attendance at the Morbi proceedings inconvenient.

It also considered the husband’s failure to pay court-ordered maintenance, his resulting imprisonment, and the Court’s prima facie view that he was unable to provide regular maintenance.

Weighing the parties’ respective inconvenience, the Court concluded that the hardship to the wife was greater and exercised its discretion in her favour.

The Court requested that the transferred suit and the wife’s maintenance proceedings be heard by the same court; it also permitted the husband to seek a common hearing date and video-conference or online participation, subject to the court’s discretion and any requirement for his physical presence.

Rule was made absolute.