Convenience of Wife and Pendency of Prior Proceedings Warrant Transfer of Matrimonial Suit Under SECTION 24 CPC

The applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking the transfer of Family Suit No. 3912 of 2025 (for restitution of conjugal rights) from the Family Court, Ahmedabad, to the Family Court, Botad

The applicant resides at Botad with her minor daughter and parents and is financially dependent on them

She had previously instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act at Botad, both of which are currently pending or under appeal in Botad

The opponent (husband) opposed the transfer, citing a pending criminal trial against the wife in Ahmedabad and offering to pay conveyance charges or conduct proceedings via video conferencing

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings (Family Suit No. 3912 of 2025) should be transferred from Ahmedabad to Botad based on the convenience of the wife and the pendency of multiple existing litigations at Botad

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants discretionary power to the High Court to transfer suits

Precedential principles established by the 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 emphasize that in matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife and the location of existing related litigations are primary considerations

The Court observed that the maintenance proceedings in Botad were instituted prior to the husband's suit in Ahmedabad

It noted the contradiction in the husband’s conduct, as he filed a criminal complaint of theft against the wife while simultaneously seeking restitution of conjugal rights

The Court found that since the husband is already required to attend maintenance and appellate proceedings in Botad, no undue hardship would be caused to him by the transfer

The wife’s responsibility to care for a minor child and her financial dependency favored Botad as the appropriate forum

Regarding the husband’s objection concerning the wife’s criminal trial in Ahmedabad, the Court noted she could seek exemption from personal appearance under the relevant provisions of the BNSS

The Court noted that the opponent failed to file a formal reply controverting the applicant's averments

The Court directed the Family Court, Botad, to hear the transferred suit alongside the pending maintenance application to ensure consistency

It further granted liberty to the opponent to request common hearing dates and to appear via video conferencing unless physical presence is strictly required at a specific stage. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs