In matrimonial proceedings, the wife’s convenience generally prevails when deciding transfer applications.

The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on 26 May 2013 according to Hindu rites and customs, and have three minor children aged approximately nine, seven and five years.

Following matrimonial disputes, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and began residing with the children at her parental house in Village Patarpara, Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur.

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 42-A/2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Kondagaon.

Invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner sought transfer of the proceeding to the Family Court, Dantewada, contending that the distance from her residence to Kondagaon was approximately 500 kilometres and that travelling with or while caring for three minor children would cause substantial hardship.

Although notice was served, the respondent neither appeared nor was represented.

1. Whether Civil Suit No. 42-A/2024 pending before the Family Court, Kondagaon, ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Dantewada under Section 24 CPC on account of the petitioner-wife’s convenience and the difficulties associated with travelling with three minor children?

2. Whether, in a matrimonial transfer petition, the convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband when determining the ends of justice?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a superior court may transfer a suit or proceeding where the ends of justice so require.

Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court held that transfer in matrimonial matters requires consideration of the parties’ economic circumstances, social background, behavioural pattern, standard of living and the circumstances in which they sustain themselves; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience should receive priority.

The Court also relied on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, which recognise that, where the husband institutes proceedings against the wife, the wife’s convenience is generally to be preferred.

The Court found that the petitioner was residing with three minor children at her parental home and would face considerable difficulty in travelling approximately 500 kilometres to attend proceedings at Kondagaon.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily takes precedence in matrimonial transfer matters, the Court held that transferring the case to Dantewada would better serve the ends of justice and reduce the practical hardship faced by the petitioner.

The respondent’s failure to appear despite service also left the petitioner’s transfer request uncontested.

Civil Suit No. 42-A/2024, Rajendra Kumar Rathore v. Anita Rathore, pending before the Family Court, Kondagaon, was directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Dantewada, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The Family Court, Kondagaon was directed to transmit the record within 15 days, and the Family Court, Dantewada was directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings preferably within four months from receipt of the record.

The parties were directed to cooperate, and the respondent could be permitted to appear through video conferencing where personal appearance was unnecessary.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.