Family proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence where the distant venue causes substantial hardship.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 8 of 2025, instituted by the opponent-husband before the Family Court at Nakhatrana, Kutchchh, to the Family Court at Dediapada, Narmada.

The applicant resided at Dediapada and contended that Nakhatrana was approximately 600 kilometres away, making it highly difficult and burdensome for her to attend the proceedings, particularly as she was responsible for a minor child.

She also stated that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and a criminal case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act were pending before courts at Dediapada, Narmada.

Although notice was duly served on the opponent, he did not appear despite sufficient opportunity.

The applicant’s averments therefore remained uncontroverted.

1. Whether Family Suit No. 8 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court at Nakhatrana, Kutchchh, to the Family Court at Dediapada, Narmada, under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience?

2. Whether the Court should balance the comparative inconvenience of the parties and permit the opponent to participate through video conferencing where appropriate?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw suits and proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

In exercising this discretionary power in matrimonial matters, the Court considered the comparative hardship and convenience of the parties, particularly the practical difficulty faced by a wife in travelling a substantial distance to attend proceedings.

The Court relied on 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, for the principle that the wife’s inconvenience is a relevant and significant consideration in applications for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court found that the distance between Dediapada, Narmada, and Nakhatrana, Kutchchh, was approximately 600 kilometres, creating substantial hardship for the applicant to attend the Family Court proceedings.

Her responsibility for a minor child and the pendency of related domestic-violence and criminal proceedings at Dediapada further supported transfer to that location.

Since the opponent had been served but neither appeared nor controverted the applicant’s assertions, the Court accepted those averments.

Applying the comparative-convenience principle under Section 24 CPC and the cited Supreme Court precedents, the Court concluded that the inconvenience to the applicant was considerably greater than that likely to be caused to the opponent.

To mitigate any inconvenience to the opponent, the Court clarified that he could seek permission to participate through video conferencing, which the Family Court was directed to allow unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

Family Suit No. 8 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Nakhatrana, Kutchchh, was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Dediapada, Narmada.

The opponent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing, subject to the requirement of physical presence at any particular stage of the proceedings.