Convenience of the wife is the primary consideration in transfer petitions for matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The Petitioner (wife) and Respondent (husband) were married on June 9, 2019, in District Koriya

Following allegations of cruelty, assault, and a dowry demand of Rs. 10,00,000, the Petitioner moved to her parental home in Manendragarh

The Respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) & (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court, Ambikapur

The Petitioner subsequently moved this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, seeking to transfer the divorce suit to the Family Court, Manendragarh

The Petitioner cited financial hardship, a distance of 122–150 kilometers between the two locations, and the fact that execution proceedings for maintenance under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, were already pending in Manendragarh

Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not appear

Whether the matrimonial proceedings should be transferred under Section 24 of the CPC based on the convenience of the wife and the existence of other pending litigations between the parties.

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

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which established that in matrimonial matters, the wife’s convenience must generally be prioritized, considering the socio-economic paradigm and the parties' financial standing

the court applied the principle that interdependent proceedings between the same parties should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of trials and conflicting decisions

The Court observed that the Petitioner is currently residing with her parents and lacks an independent source of income

It noted that the Petitioner had already initiated maintenance execution proceedings in Manendragarh due to the Respondent's failure to comply with prior orders

The Court reasoned that requiring the Petitioner to travel 122–150 kilometers to Ambikapur for the divorce suit would cause significant financial and physical hardship

Applying the N.C.V. Aishwarya doctrine, the Court determined that the balance of convenience heavily favored the wife

transferring the divorce petition to the same jurisdiction where maintenance proceedings were already pending would promote judicial efficiency and prevent inconsistent rulings

The Court held that the wife's convenience and the prevention of multiplicity of proceedings are paramount considerations in matrimonial transfer cases

Both parties were directed to appear before the Family Court, Manendragarh, on May 12, 2026