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

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on 08.05.2006 and have three children.

Following marital discord, the respondent allegedly ousted the petitioner from the matrimonial home on 11.06.2023, after which she began residing at her parental home in District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur.

The petitioner filed multiple cases in Manendragarh, including an application for maintenance under Section 144 BNSS and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act.

Subsequently, the respondent filed a divorce petition (HMA Case No. 810/2025) before the Family Court in Raipur.

The petitioner sought transfer of the divorce case from Raipur to Manendragarh, citing a 630 km round-trip distance and her responsibility to care for three children.

1. Whether the divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court, Raipur should be transferred to the Family Court, Manendragarh based on the convenience of the wife.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which provides the power to transfer suits and proceedings to meet the ends of justice.

Principle established in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which mandates that in matrimonial disputes, the wife's convenience must generally be prioritized given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in Indian society.

Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi (2005), affirming that the convenience of the wife is preferred over that of the husband in transfer petitions.

The Court observed that the petitioner is currently residing in Manendragarh and caring for three children.

Compelling her to travel approximately 630 kilometers to and fro for proceedings in Raipur would cause "immense hardship".

The Court noted that the respondent is already appearing in two other matrimonial litigations—maintenance and domestic violence proceedings—filed by the petitioner in Manendragarh.

Applying the settled precedent that the wife’s convenience is paramount in matrimonial transfer cases, the Court found the hardship faced by the petitioner outweighed the respondent's contention regarding direct train connectivity.

To balance equities, the Court allowed the respondent to appear via video conferencing for certain hearings to mitigate his travel burden.

The Court ordered the record to be transmitted within 15 days and directed the transferee court to expedite and conclude trial within four months.

The respondent was granted liberty to join proceedings through Video Conferencing when his personal appearance is not explicitly required.