Family suit transferred to wife’s residence where her hardship substantially exceeds the husband’s inconvenience.

The applicant-wife, residing at Anand, sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), of Family Suit No. 43 of 2025 instituted by the opponent-husband before the Family Court, Dahod, to the Family Court, Anand.

She contended that Dahod was approximately 160 kilometres from Anand, involving about four hours of travel one way, and that she had also initiated maintenance proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, at Anand, in which the husband was required to appear.

The husband opposed the transfer, asserting that transport facilities were available and that transfer would cause him hardship because his grandmother was suffering from cancer and he was required to attend to his business.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, Family Suit No. 43 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Dahod, to the Family Court, Anand under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the comparative hardship and convenience of the parties.

Whether suitable directions should be issued to coordinate the transferred family suit with the pending maintenance proceedings and permit the husband to participate through video conferencing where appropriate.

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where such transfer is necessary in the interests of justice, including on considerations of convenience and comparative hardship.

The Court relied on the principles stated by the Supreme Court in 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, concerning transfer of matrimonial and family proceedings by giving due weight to the wife’s convenience and the overall circumstances of the parties.

The Court also considered the availability of video-conferencing facilities as a means of reducing inconvenience to a party required to attend proceedings.

The Court found that the applicant-wife was residing at Anand, was not financially self-dependent, and was already pursuing maintenance proceedings there because of alleged non-receipt of maintenance.

The distance and travel time between Anand and Dahod created substantially greater hardship for her than the inconvenience claimed by the husband.

The husband was already required to attend the proceedings at Anand, and the Court considered that his family and business obligations did not outweigh the applicant’s hardship, particularly as his father could look after his ailing grandmother.

The Court further held that the husband could seek participation through video conferencing, and that the decision relied upon by him did not assist his case in the circumstances presented.

The Family Court, Anand, was requested to assign a common date for the transferred family suit and the pending maintenance proceedings so that the husband could attend both matters together.

The husband was permitted to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, which the Family Court was directed to allow unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.