### Convenience of Wife and Pendency of Related Proceedings Overriding Factors for Transfer of Matrimonial Cases

The petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on 22.05.2017 and have a minor daughter born in 2018

The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court, Rajnandgaon

The petitioner, currently residing in Raipur with her daughter, filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer the divorce proceedings to the Family Court, Raipur

She alleged financial hardship, lack of independent income, and the burden of traveling 144 kilometers to Rajnandgaon while managing ongoing maintenance and domestic violence cases already pending in Raipur

The respondent opposed the transfer, claiming the petition was a delay tactic

1. Whether the divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, should be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, based on the convenience of the wife and the existence of other pending litigations between the parties in Raipur.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits to meet the ends of justice

N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which established the cardinal principle that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must generally be prioritized, taking into account the socio-economic paradigm, financial standing, and the "protective umbrella" under which the parties live

Interdependent proceedings involving common questions of fact and law should be tried by the same judge to avoid a conflict of decisions

The court found that the balance of convenience leaned significantly in favor of the petitioner. It noted that the petitioner is a housewife with no independent income, tasked with the sole care of a minor child in Raipur

The court underscored that multiple proceedings (Section 125 Cr.P.C., Domestic Violence Act, and an FIR) were already pending in Raipur, and that the 144-kilometer distance to Rajnandgaon imposed an unreasonable hardship on the petitioner

The court reasoned that since the parties previously filed a mutual divorce petition in Raipur—wherein the respondent declared himself a resident of Raipur—transferring the case would prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments

The High Court directed the transfer of Civil Suit No. A/2/2026 from the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, to the Family Court, Raipur, for trial and disposal. Both parties were ordered to appear before the Family Court, Raipur, on 19.06.2026