Filing subsequent cases after receiving notice is not a valid ground for transferring a matrimonial dispute.

The applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the CPC seeking the transfer of a divorce petition (HMA Case No. 677/2024) filed by the respondent (husband) from the Family Court, Vidisha to the Family Court, Sagar.

The respondent initiated the divorce proceedings on September 9, 2024.

Subsequent to receiving notice of the divorce petition, the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS (January 2025) and lodged an FIR (February 2025) against the respondent in Sagar.

The applicant contended that since the respondent would have to travel to Sagar for the criminal cases, the matrimonial case should also be moved there for her convenience.

1. Whether the filing of subsequent criminal cases by a spouse after the institution of a matrimonial petition constitutes a valid ground for the transfer of the matrimonial case under Section 24 of the CPC?

2. Whether the inconvenience of physical travel for matrimonial proceedings can be mitigated through video conferencing and financial allowances instead of transferring the case?

The court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the general power of transfer.

It heavily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1, which established that while reconciliation proceedings must be in person, subsequent matrimonial proceedings may be conducted via video conferencing upon mutual consent or at the court's discretion to subserve the cause of justice.

The court observed that the applicant filed her criminal complaints only after the respondent had already instituted the divorce petition; it held that filing multiple cases post-notice does not constitute a "good ground" for transfer.

The court further noted that the applicant had not filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, contradicting her claim of wanting to reconcile.

To address the applicant’s claim of "difficulty" in traveling to Vidisha, the court reasoned that technology and financial remedies are preferred over transferring the venue.

Specifically, once reconciliation efforts (which require physical presence) are exhausted, the applicant may apply for video conferencing.

Additionally, any financial burden of travel can be mitigated by directing the trial court to award travel, lodging, and boarding expenses.

It held that a transfer is not warranted simply because the wife filed cases in a different jurisdiction after the husband's petition was recorded.

The court granted the applicant liberty to: (a) apply for appearance via Video Conferencing after the failure of reconciliation proceedings, which the trial court must consider per Santhini (Supra); and (b) file an application for to and fro expenses and boarding charges for herself and an attendant, which the trial court is directed to award based on current price indices.