A wife’s hardship justifies 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. 104 of 2026, filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and pending before the Family Court at Anand, to the concerned Court at Rajkot.

She stated that she had been driven from the matrimonial home and was living with her parents in Rajkot; that she had no permanent income and her husband did not meet her expenses; and that travelling approximately 250 kilometres to Anand would cause hardship.

She also relied on other proceedings between the parties pending at Rajkot.

The husband was served but did not appear or place a reply on the record, despite being given a further opportunity to do so.

1. Whether the Family Suit pending at Anand should be transferred to Rajkot in light of the applicant-wife’s circumstances and the alleged hardship of attending proceedings at Anand.

2. Whether directions should be made to facilitate coordination of the transferred suit with the other proceedings at Rajkot and the husband’s participation in the case.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was invoked as the basis for seeking transfer of the pending family suit.

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 detailed statement of the principles from those decisions.

The Court accepted the applicant’s submissions that she was residing with her parents in Rajkot, lacked a permanent source of income, was not receiving expenses from her husband, and would face hardship travelling to Anand.

It also noted that other proceedings between the parties were pending at Rajkot. As these factual assertions remained uncontroverted, and the husband had neither appeared nor filed a reply, the Court found it appropriate to grant the transfer application.

To facilitate the proceedings, it requested that the transferred suit and the other pending proceedings be heard by the same Court, and allowed the husband to seek common dates and participation by video conference, subject to any requirement for his physical presence.

It requested that the transferred suit and the other proceedings pending at Rajkot be heard by the same Court; any request for common dates may be considered sympathetically.

The husband may seek to participate by video conference, unless physical presence is required at a particular stage.

Rule was made absolute.