In matrimonial transfer proceedings, the wife’s convenience must generally be preferred over the husband’s.

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Civil Suit No. 141-A/2025, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and pending before the Family Court, Bemetara, to the Family Court, Raipur.

The parties married on 12 June 2023; matrimonial disputes allegedly arose thereafter, and the husband left the wife at her maternal home in Raipur in October 2024.

The wife had instituted a maintenance proceeding under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Family Court, Raipur, in which the husband had entered appearance.

She contended that the approximately 140-kilometre distance between Raipur and Bemetara made attendance at Bemetara inconvenient and that transfer would also enable the husband to attend both proceedings at Raipur.

The husband opposed the transfer, relying on direct bus connectivity and the wife’s ability to travel.

1. Whether Civil Suit No. 141-A/2025 pending before the Family Court, Bemetara, ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, in exercise of the Court’s power under Section 24 CPC.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of the matrimonial dispute, the wife’s convenience and the pendency of the connected maintenance proceeding at Raipur justified the transfer despite the husband’s objection based on travel convenience.

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

Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, it held that transfer in matrimonial matters requires consideration of the parties’ economic position, social circumstances, lifestyle, livelihood, and overall convenience, with the wife’s convenience generally receiving preference in the prevailing socio-economic context.

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 matrimonial proceedings are instituted by the husband against the wife, the wife’s convenience is ordinarily to be preferred.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the wife would face difficulty travelling from Raipur to Bemetara to attend the proceedings, whereas the husband was already required to appear in the wife’s maintenance case before the Family Court, Raipur.

Consequently, transfer to Raipur would accommodate the wife’s convenience and would also be convenient for the husband by consolidating his court appearances at the same place.

The husband’s argument concerning bus connectivity and the wife’s ability to travel did not outweigh the established principle that the wife’s convenience is to be given predominant consideration in matrimonial transfer matters.

Civil Suit No. 141-A/2025, Vasudev v. Chandraprabha, was ordered to be transferred from the Family Court, Bemetara, to the Family Court, Raipur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The Family Court, Bemetara, was directed to transmit the record within 15 days, and the Family Court, Raipur, was directed to conclude the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving 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 interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.