Courts must generally prioritize the wife’s convenience in matrimonial transfer petitions.

The wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of MAT Case No. 32 of 2026 from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh, to the Family Court, Dhenkanal.

She stated that she had been deserted, had no independent income, depended on her parents, and would face difficulty travelling more than 50 kilometres to Athagarh.

Notice to the husband was returned with the endorsement “refused” and was treated as sufficient; the petition was heard in his absence.

Whether the matrimonial proceeding should be transferred under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the wife’s circumstances and convenience.

Whether directions should be made concerning notice to the husband and the manner and expeditious conduct of the transferred proceeding.

Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding where the ends of justice warrant it.

In matrimonial transfer matters, N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, directs courts to consider the parties’ economic circumstances, social position, conduct, standard of living, and means of livelihood; in the prevailing socio-economic context, the wife’s convenience generally merits particular consideration.

The Court considered the wife’s uncontroverted account that she had no income, depended on her parents, and would have to travel over 50 kilometres to attend the Athagarh court.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience generally guides transfer decisions in matrimonial matters, the Court found it appropriate to move the proceeding to Dhenkanal.

Because the husband had not appeared in the transfer petition, the Court also directed the Family Court to notify him before proceeding further.

The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh, was directed to transmit the record to the Family Court, Dhenkanal, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment; the Family Court was to re-register the case if necessary and proceed in accordance with law.

The Court also addressed virtual appearances, required physical attendance where necessary for effective hearings, and directed the parties to cooperate in avoiding delay.

The interim order was vacated and the connected interlocutory application disposed of.