Convenience of the wife and prior pending proceedings justify transfer of matrimonial suit under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer Family Suit No. 75 of 2025, initiated by her husband (the opponent), from the Family Court at Kapadvanj, Kheda to the Family Court at Rajkot

The applicant resides in Rajkot and had previously instituted a suit against the opponent under Section 12(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act in Rajkot in 2025

The distance between the two locations is approximately 231 kilometers

Despite being served notice on April 7, 2026, the opponent failed to appear or oppose the application

1. Whether the applicant-wife established sufficient grounds of hardship and inconvenience to warrant the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC.

The court applied Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which grants discretionary power to transfer suits to meet the ends of justice

It relied on the precedential ratio established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (AIR 2002 SC 396) and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199), which underscore prioritizing the convenience of the wife and considering the hardships involved in traveling long distances for matrimonial litigation

The Court observed that the distance of 231 kilometers between Kapadvanj and Rajkot would cause "great hardship and inconvenience" to the applicant-wife if she were required to attend proceedings in Kapadvanj

The Court noted that the opponent was already required to attend Rajkot for the family suit previously filed by the wife, making the husband's suit in Kapadvanj appear to be a "counterblast"

Since the opponent failed to appear despite service, the averments regarding hardship remained uncontroverted

Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant to mitigate the higher level of inconvenience she faced compared to the opponent

The Court directed that both pending suits between the parties be heard by the same court in Rajkot to ensure consistency

Additionally, the Court granted the opponent liberty to request common hearing dates and the option to appear via video conferencing/online mode, provided his physical presence is not required for specific stages of the proceedings