In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife's convenience ordinarily receives paramount consideration.

The petitioner-wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the divorce proceeding, Civil Suit No. A/74/2026, instituted by the respondent-husband, from the Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, to the Family Court, Mungeli.

The parties were married in May 2019 and had two children. One child, aged approximately three years, resided with the petitioner, while the other, aged approximately six years, resided with the respondent.

Following deterioration of the marital relationship, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and began residing with her parents at Mungeli. She asserted that she had no independent source of income and would face hardship in travelling approximately 160 kilometres round trip to attend proceedings at Balodabazar.

Notice was served on the respondent, but he neither appeared personally nor through counsel.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the ends of justice so require.

It relied on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, for the principle that, where a husband institutes proceedings against his wife, the wife’s convenience must be considered.

It further relied on Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, which affirms that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over that of the husband in appropriate matrimonial transfer matters.

The Court also applied N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, which holds that the governing consideration under Section 24 CPC is whether the ends of justice require transfer and that, in matrimonial disputes, courts should consider the parties’ economic condition, social circumstances, livelihood, standard of living, and circumstances of sustenance; generally, the wife’s convenience should receive primacy.

The Court found that the petitioner was residing at Mungeli with a minor child of approximately three years, had no independent income, and would have to undertake substantial travel to attend hearings at Balodabazar.

Applying the established principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily deserves priority in matrimonial transfer proceedings, the Court concluded that requiring the petitioner to repeatedly travel to Balodabazar would cause undue hardship.

The respondent’s non-appearance despite service of notice left the petitioner’s grounds uncontested.

In these circumstances, transfer to Mungeli was considered necessary to advance the ends of justice and facilitate the petitioner’s effective participation in the proceedings.

Civil Suit No. A/74/2026, Khilendra Kumar Rajak v. Rani Bai Rajak, was transferred from the Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, to the Family Court, Mungeli, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The transferor court was directed to transmit the record within fifteen days of receiving or communicating the order.

The transferee court was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving the record, with both parties directed to cooperate.

The respondent-husband was permitted to participate through video conferencing on dates when his personal appearance was not specifically required.

Any pending interim applications were disposed of.