In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife’s convenience is paramount, especially when caring for an infant.

The petitioner-wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the respondent-husband’s divorce proceeding, Civil Suit No. 46A/2026, from the Family Court, Kabirdham, to the Family Court, Durg.

The parties married on 12 January 2024 and have a daughter aged approximately 17 months. Following matrimonial discord, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and began residing with her parents at Durg. She asserted that she had no independent source of income and could not regularly travel the approximately 260-kilometre round trip to Kabirdham for each hearing.

Although notice was served, the respondent neither appeared personally nor through counsel.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which proceedings may be transferred where the ends of justice so require.

Relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Court held that, in matrimonial proceedings instituted by the husband against the wife, the wife’s convenience is ordinarily entitled to preference.

It further relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, which states that transfer under Section 24 must serve the ends of justice and requires consideration of the parties’ economic circumstances, social position, behavioural pattern, standard of living, and circumstances of livelihood; generally, the wife’s convenience should be considered in matrimonial matters.

The Court found that the petitioner was residing at Durg with a 17-month-old child, lacked an independent source of income, and would face substantial difficulty in travelling approximately 260 kilometres for each hearing at Kabirdham.

Applying the settled principle that the wife’s convenience is ordinarily paramount in matrimonial transfer matters, the Court concluded that transferring the proceedings to Durg would reduce the petitioner’s hardship and facilitate her regular participation in the case.

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

The transferor Court was directed to transmit the record within 15 days of receiving or being communicated the order.

The Family Court, Durg, was directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings preferably within four months of receiving the record, with both parties directed to cooperate.

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

Pending interim applications, if any, were disposed of.