In matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience is the paramount consideration for transferring proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on February 29, 2024, under Muslim rites.

Approximately eight months later, the husband left the wife at her parental home in Raigarh, where she currently resides.

The husband filed a divorce petition (Muslim Marriage Case No. 19/2025) under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, before the Family Court in Bilaspur.

Conversely, the wife filed a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), currently pending in Raigarh.

The wife filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking transfer of the divorce case from Bilaspur to Raigarh, citing a travel distance of 320 km, the lack of a male companion, and her father's advanced age.

The respondent failed to appear despite being served notice.

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court, Bilaspur, ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Raigarh, based on the convenience of the wife?

The court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits.

It relied on the "cardinal principle" established in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which mandates that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must generally be the primary consideration.

The court also cited Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi (2005), reinforcing the doctrine that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over that of the husband in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial litigation.

The court analyzed the physical and social hardships faced by the petitioner, noting the 320 km to-and-fro distance between the two districts and the petitioner's inability to travel without an escort due to her father's age.

Applying the precedent from N.C.V. Aishwarya, the court determined that the socio-economic paradigm in India favors the wife’s convenience in such instances.

Furthermore, the court observed that since a maintenance proceeding was already pending in Raigarh against the husband, transferring the divorce case to the same jurisdiction would actually benefit both parties by allowing them to attend proceedings for both cases in a single location.

It held that the wife's convenience is paramount and ordered the transfer of Muslim Marriage Case No. 19/2025 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Raigarh.

The transferring court was directed to transmit records within 15 days, and the transferee court was directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably within four months.

No order as to costs was made.