Hardship to wife residing with minor child warrants transfer of matrimonial proceedings to her place of residence.

The applicant (wife) and opponent (husband) are in a matrimonial dispute. The opponent instituted a family suit at the Family Court, Ahmedabad

The applicant currently resides at her parents' home in Morbi with her eight-month-old daughter

The distance between Morbi and Ahmedabad is approximately 180–200 kilometers

The applicant filed this application seeking to transfer the Family Suit from Ahmedabad to Morbi, citing financial hardship, the lack of maintenance support from the husband, and the logistical difficulty of traveling with an infant

Notably, the applicant has already initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at the Family Court, Morbi

1. Whether the matrimonial suit pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad should be transferred to the Family Court, Morbi based on the grounds of hardship and inconvenience to the wife.

The court applied the discretionary power of transfer under the Code of Civil Procedure (and Section 24 in spirit), guided by the principles of "convenience of the parties," particularly focusing on the wife's circumstances in matrimonial disputes.

Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (AIR 2002 SC 396)

N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199), which establish that the convenience of the wife must be given priority in transfer petitions

the court considered the procedural efficiency of having multiple litigations (maintenance and original suit) heard in the same jurisdiction to avoid conflicting decisions.

The court found that the applicant’s burden was significantly higher than the opponent's because she is caring for an eight-month-old child and receives no financial maintenance from the husband

The travel distance of 180 km would cause "great hardship and inconvenience" if she were forced to attend proceedings in Ahmedabad

The court noted that the opponent was already required to attend maintenance proceedings in Morbi under Section 144 of the BNSS; therefore, transferring the Ahmedabad suit to the same court would streamline the litigation

To balance the equities, the court observed that the husband's potential inconvenience could be mitigated by allowing his participation via video conferencing

Since the opponent failed to appear or file a reply to controvert the applicant's claims, the court accepted the applicant’s assertions as uncontroverted

The Principal Judge at Morbi was requested to ensure the suit is heard by the same court handling the applicant's maintenance proceedings

The court further granted the opponent the liberty to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, provided his physical presence is not required at a specific stage of the proceedings