Family proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence upon establishing hardship and caregiving obligations.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), of Family Suit No. 55 of 2024, formerly Family Suit No. 176 of 2022, from the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the Family Court at Vadodara.

The suit had earlier been transferred from Rajkot to Gandhinagar by the High Court’s order dated 9 February 2024 because the applicant was then residing with her parents in the Ahmedabad/Gandhinagar area.

Subsequently, the applicant’s father died, and owing to financial constraints and the need to care for the parties’ specially-abled minor child, she moved to Vadodara, where she was residing with her sister.

She contended that travelling approximately 140 kilometres from Vadodara to Gandhinagar caused substantial hardship.

The opponent opposed the transfer, asserting that the applicant continued to be a permanent resident of Ahmedabad and that a further transfer would cause him inconvenience; alternatively, he sought permission to participate through video conferencing.

Whether Family Suit No. 55 of 2024 should be transferred from the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the Family Court at Vadodara under Section 24 CPC on account of the applicant’s changed residence, financial circumstances, and responsibility for the specially-abled minor child?

Whether the opponent should be permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the discretion of the Family Court?

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw proceedings where the interests of justice, convenience of the parties, or other relevant circumstances justify such transfer.

The Court considered the established principle that, in matrimonial and family proceedings, the comparative hardship and practical convenience of the parties—particularly the wife’s ability to attend proceedings and her responsibility for a minor child—are relevant factors in exercising transfer jurisdiction.

It referred to 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; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, as authorities concerning transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court found that the circumstances underlying the earlier transfer to Gandhinagar had materially changed: the applicant’s father had died, she no longer had the earlier parental support, she was residing at Vadodara, and she had to care for the specially-abled minor child.

In these circumstances, requiring her to travel approximately 140 kilometres to Gandhinagar would cause significant hardship, particularly in the absence of adequate assistance.

Although the opponent also claimed inconvenience, the Court considered that he was already travelling from Rajkot to attend proceedings at Gandhinagar and could travel to Vadodara.

The balance of convenience and the interests of justice therefore favoured transfer to Vadodara.

The Court separately preserved the opponent’s ability to seek participation through video conferencing, while leaving it to the Family Court to determine whether physical presence was necessary at any particular stage.

Family Suit No. 55 of 2024, formerly Family Suit No. 176 of 2022, was directed to be transferred from the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the Family Court at Vadodara.

The opponent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the Family Court’s discretion and any requirement of physical presence.

The applicant was directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the suit and to avoid relocating from Vadodara until the proceedings were concluded, as far as practicable.

The rule was made absolute in terms of paragraph 8-B.