A wife’s hardship justifies transferring matrimonial proceedings to her place of residence.

The applicant-wife, Rohini, residing at Chhotaudepur, sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 966 of 2024 instituted by the respondent-husband before the Family Court at Vadodara to the Family Court at Chhotaudepur.

She contended that Vadodara was far from her place of residence and that attending proceedings there would cause her substantial hardship.

She had also instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the respondent before the competent Court at Chhotaudepur.

Although served and granted opportunities, the respondent neither filed an appearance nor contested the transfer application; the application therefore remained uncontested.

Whether Family Suit No. 966 of 2024 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Chhotaudepur under Section 24 CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s residence and the hardship involved in attending proceedings at Vadodara.

Whether the respondent-husband could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the requirements of the proceedings.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding from one competent court to another where the interests of justice so require.

In exercising this discretionary power in matrimonial matters, the Court considered the comparative hardship and inconvenience faced by the parties, particularly the inconvenience to the wife in travelling to a distant forum.

The Court relied on 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, which recognise the relevance of the wife’s convenience and the overall circumstances in applications for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court also directed that the husband may seek participation through video conferencing, unless his physical presence is specifically required.

The Court found that the applicant was residing at Chhotaudepur, that the respondent’s family suit was pending at Vadodara, and that the applicant was already required to attend maintenance proceedings at Chhotaudepur.

Since the respondent had not controverted these averments despite service and repeated opportunities, the factual assertions remained undisputed.

Applying the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the Court concluded that the applicant would suffer substantially greater hardship and inconvenience than the respondent if the suit remained at Vadodara.

The Court accordingly exercised its discretion in favour of transfer, while preserving the respondent’s ability to participate remotely where appropriate.

Family Suit No. 966 of 2024 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Chhotaudepur.

The respondent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, and the Family Court was directed to accept such a request unless his physical presence was required at a particular stage.