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

The applicants, including the wife, sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of Family Suit No. 57 of 2025 instituted by the opponent before the Family Court at Mahisagar, to the competent court at Patan.

The applicant-wife was residing at Patan with her minor son, and the distance between Patan and Mahisagar was approximately 430 kilometres round trip, causing her hardship and inconvenience.

She had also instituted maintenance and recovery proceedings against the opponent before the competent court at Patan. Although maintenance had been ordered, the opponent was allegedly not paying it regularly.

The opponent opposed the transfer, contending that the applicant could participate through video conferencing.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, Family Suit No. 57 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court at Mahisagar to the competent court at Patan under Section 24 of the CPC.

Whether the inconvenience to the applicant-wife, including the distance, her residence with a minor child, and the pending maintenance-recovery proceedings at Patan, justified exercising the Court’s discretion in her favour notwithstanding the possibility of video-conferencing.

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

The Court relied on Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, for the principle that, in matrimonial and family proceedings, the wife’s genuine difficulty and overall convenience are relevant considerations in determining an application for transfer.

The Court also recognised that participation through video conferencing may be permitted where appropriate, but it does not necessarily eliminate the hardship warranting transfer.

The Court found it undisputed that the applicant-wife lived at Patan with her minor son, while the family suit was pending at Mahisagar, approximately 430 kilometres away by round trip.

It further considered that maintenance had not been paid regularly despite an order and that the applicant’s recovery proceedings were already pending at Patan, where the opponent was required to appear.

Weighing the comparative inconvenience to both parties, the Court held that the hardship to the applicant was substantially greater.

The opponent’s ability to seek video-conferencing facilities did not outweigh these circumstances, particularly because the existing proceedings at Patan provided a practical basis for consolidating the related matters.

The Patan court was requested to hear the transferred family suit and the applicant’s pending maintenance-recovery proceedings before the same court.

The opponent was permitted to seek common dates and participation through video conferencing, subject to the court’s discretion and any requirement of physical presence.

The rule was made absolute accordingly.