In matrimonial disputes, the wife's convenience regarding travel connectivity and residence deserves preference in transfer proceedings.

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on February 25, 2024, and subsequently resided in Bangalore for work.

Following a strain in their relationship, the parties began living separately.

The respondent husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court in Bilaspur (HM Case No. 665/2025).

The petitioner, a permanent resident of Raipur currently working in Bangalore, filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the CPC to move the proceedings from Bilaspur to Raipur, citing travel convenience due to direct air connectivity between Bangalore and Raipur, which is absent for Bilaspur.

The respondent opposed the transfer, suggesting Bangalore as an alternative forum if transfer were to occur.

Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court, Bilaspur should be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, based on the convenience of the wife.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer cases.

The settled legal proposition that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves preference over that of the husband.

This principle is supported by a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court establishing that the wife's convenience is a primary consideration in transfer petitions.

The Court observed that while the petitioner is employed in Bangalore, she is a permanent resident of Raipur where her parents reside.

The Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument regarding logistical convenience, noting that the existence of direct air connectivity between Bangalore and Raipur—and the lack thereof for Bilaspur—facilitates her attendance at court proceedings.

The Court rejected the respondent's plea to transfer the case to Bangalore, noting he is a resident of Bilaspur and such a transfer was not sustainable in the given circumstances.

Applying the "convenience of the wife" doctrine, the Court determined that forcing the petitioner to travel to Bilaspur would cause undue hardship compared to Raipur.

The Court directed the transferring court to transmit records within 15 days and instructed the Family Court, Raipur to expedite the trial and conclude it within four months.

No order as to costs was made.