Convenience of the wife is the primary consideration for transferring matrimonial proceedings between jurisdictions.

The parties were married on July 6, 2022

Following alleged physical and mental cruelty regarding dowry demands, the petitioner (wife) moved to her parents' residence in Sarangarh

The petitioner initiated two proceedings in Sarangarh: a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a criminal case under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Subsequently, the respondent (husband) filed Civil Suit No. A/211/2024 before the Family Court, Raigarh

The petitioner sought to transfer the Raigarh suit to Sarangarh, citing travel hardship and financial inconvenience

The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing that he would suffer similar hardship if required to travel to Sarangarh

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending in Raigarh should be transferred to Sarangarh to accommodate the convenience of the wife and ensure judicial efficiency

The court primarily exercised its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which mandates that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must generally be the primary consideration due to prevailing socio-economic factors

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that interdependent proceedings involving common questions of fact and law between the same parties should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of trials and conflicting decisions

The court evaluated the petitioner’s circumstances, noting her residence in Sarangarh and the pre-existence of two related cases filed by her in that district

Applying the N.C.V. Aishwarya doctrine, the court determined that the petitioner’s convenience outweighed the respondent's plea of "mere inconvenience"

The court reasoned that since the issues in the various suits were interdependent, transferring the case to Sarangarh would facilitate a consolidated trial before the same judge, thereby preventing inconsistent judicial outcomes

To balance the respondent’s concerns regarding travel, the court provided a procedural safeguard by allowing him to appear virtually

The respondent was granted liberty to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing unless otherwise directed

The court ordered both parties to appear before the transferee court on May 5, 2026