In matrimonial transfer proceedings, the wife’s convenience must ordinarily be accorded primacy.

The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on 23 January 2022, and a male child was born from the marriage on 16 January 2023.

Alleging dowry-related physical cruelty, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur. The husband subsequently instituted Civil Suit No. 128-A/2025 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce before the Family Court, Katghora, District Korba.

The wife sought transfer of the divorce proceeding to the Family Court, Raipur, principally on the grounds that Katghora was approximately 250 kilometres from Raipur and that travelling with her three-year-old minor child would cause considerable hardship.

She further submitted that the husband was already appearing in the maintenance proceeding at Raipur, making the transfer convenient for both parties.

The respondent raised a formal objection.

1. Whether Civil Suit No. 128-A/2025 pending before the Family Court, Katghora, should be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, under Section 24 of the CPC?

2. Whether the petitioner-wife’s convenience, including her responsibility for a minor child and the distance between the two courts, justified transfer of the matrimonial proceeding?

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 N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court held that, in matrimonial transfer matters, courts must consider the economic circumstances, social position, behavioural pattern, standard of living, livelihood, and support systems of both parties; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience is to be given substantial consideration.

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, which establish that where a matrimonial proceeding is instituted by the husband against the wife, the wife’s convenience is generally to be preferred.

The Court found that the wife would face substantial hardship in travelling approximately 250 kilometres from Raipur to Katghora while caring for her minor child.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily receives priority in matrimonial transfer petitions, the Court considered the distance, the child’s young age, and the wife’s existing maintenance proceeding at Raipur. Since the husband was already required to appear before the Family Court, Raipur, transfer would also facilitate his participation in both proceedings and would not cause comparable inconvenience to him.

The Court therefore concluded that the ends of justice favoured transfer under Section 24 CPC.

Civil Suit No. 128-A/2025, Jugesh Patel v. Dhaneshwari Patel, pending before the Family Court, Katghora, District Korba, was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The Family Court, Katghora, was directed to transmit the record within 15 days, and the Family Court, Raipur, was directed to endeavour to conclude the trial 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.