Family-court proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence where distance and childcare create genuine hardship.

The petitioner-wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of C.P. No. 227 of 2024 from the Court of the Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, to the Family Court, Sambalpur.

She stated that she had been deserted, had no independent income, was caring for a breastfeeding child, and was residing with and dependent upon her aged parents.

The distance between Sambalpur and Bhubaneswar was approximately 300 kilometres, making it difficult for her to attend proceedings at Bhubaneswar with the child.

She had also instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC at Sambalpur, in which the husband had appeared and contested the matter.

Although the husband had not filed written objections, his counsel orally stated that he had no objection to the transfer.

He nevertheless sought permission to appear through virtual mode because he was employed as a technical person under a builder at Khordha and might face difficulty travelling to Sambalpur on each date.

1. Whether C.P. No. 227 of 2024 should be transferred from the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, to the Family Court, Sambalpur, under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the petitioner-wife’s circumstances and the parties’ respective convenience.

2. Whether the parties could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through virtual mode, subject to the discretion of the Family Court and the requirement of physical presence for effective hearings.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings from one competent subordinate court to another where such transfer is warranted in the interests of justice and convenience.

The Court also applied the principle that, in matrimonial proceedings, the practical difficulties faced by a deserted wife having custody of a breastfeeding child, including financial dependence and geographical distance, are relevant considerations in determining the appropriate forum.

For participation through video conferencing, the Court relied upon the facility available to the Family Court and directed compliance with the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, while preserving the Court’s power to require physical attendance for examination, cross-examination, and other effective hearings.

The Court found that the petitioner-wife’s lack of income, responsibility for a breastfeeding child, dependence on her aged parents, and the approximately 300-kilometre distance between Sambalpur and Bhubaneswar established substantial practical difficulty in prosecuting the case at Bhubaneswar.

The transfer was further supported by the fact that the husband had already appeared and contested the wife’s Section 125 CrPC proceeding at Sambalpur, demonstrating that his participation there was not inherently impracticable.

Since the husband’s counsel ultimately stated that he had no objection to the transfer, the Court considered the wife’s circumstances and the parties’ submissions sufficient to justify exercise of its power under Section 24 CPC.

To address the husband’s employment-related difficulty, and to facilitate efficient proceedings, the Court permitted either party to seek virtual appearance with the Family Court’s permission, while requiring physical presence whenever necessary for effective adjudication.

The Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, was directed to transmit the record in C.P. No. 227 of 2024 to the Family Court, Sambalpur, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment.

The Family Court, Sambalpur, was directed to re-register the case if necessary and endeavour to dispose of it preferably by the end of February 2027.

Both parties were permitted to seek appearance through virtual mode, subject to the Family Court’s permission and the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020; however, physical attendance could be required for examination, cross-examination, and other effective hearings.

The parties were directed to ascertain the posting details themselves or through counsel, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate in expeditious disposal.

The interim order dated 13 August 2024 was vacated, and the Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to both Family Courts.