In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife’s convenience ordinarily prevails over the husband’s convenience.

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Case No. 542/2026, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, to the Family Court, Kawardha.

The parties married on 13 May 2022. The wife alleged cruelty and dowry-related harassment, following which she left the matrimonial home on 20 December 2024 and began residing with her parents at Kawardha.

She had also lodged FIR No. 83/2025 against the husband and his family members at Police Station Kabirdham, with proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham (Kawardha).

The wife contended that the approximately 240-kilometre distance between Kawardha and Raipur, coupled with her lack of independent income, made it difficult for her to attend proceedings at Raipur.

The husband opposed the transfer on the ground that he was employed in a private bank and posted at Raipur, making travel to Kawardha inconvenient.

Whether, in the circumstances of the matrimonial dispute, Case No. 542/2026 should be transferred from the Family Court, Raipur, to the Family Court, Kawardha under Section 24 CPC.

Whether the wife’s convenience, including her financial circumstances, residence at Kawardha, and the pendency of related criminal proceedings there, should be preferred over the husband’s employment-related inconvenience at Raipur.

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, under which proceedings may be transferred when 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 matrimonial transfer applications require consideration of the parties’ economic position, social circumstances, lifestyle, behavioural circumstances, and means of livelihood, and that, in the prevailing socio-economic context, the wife’s convenience will generally receive preference.

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

The Court found that the wife was residing with her parents at Kawardha, had no independent income, and would face difficulty travelling approximately 240 kilometres to Raipur for each hearing.

Her criminal case against the husband was already pending before the competent Magistrate at Kawardha, making transfer convenient not only for her but also for the husband, who would otherwise have to attend proceedings at both locations.

Although the husband was employed at Raipur and claimed difficulty travelling to Kawardha, the Court held that this inconvenience did not outweigh the wife’s circumstances or the established principle favouring her convenience in matrimonial proceedings.

The Court therefore concluded that the ends of justice warranted transfer.

Case No. 542/2026, Ishwarnath Yogi v. Poornima Yogi, was ordered to be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, to the Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The Family Court, Raipur, was directed to transmit the record within 15 days, and the Family Court, Kawardha, was directed to conclude the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving the record.

The parties were directed to cooperate, and the husband 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.