In matrimonial transfer proceedings, the wife’s convenience ordinarily takes precedence over the husband’s convenience.

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Civil Suit No. 04/2026, a matrimonial proceeding instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the First District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Raipur.

The parties married on 29 January 2016 and have an approximately eight-year-old minor child.

The wife alleged cruelty by the husband and his family, stated that she was residing at her parental home in Raipur, and pointed out that her proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was pending before the JMFC, Raipur, where the husband had entered appearance.

She submitted that the distance between Raipur and Pendra Road was approximately 500 kilometres to and fro and that her parents were deceased, making repeated travel difficult.

The husband opposed the transfer, asserting that the wife had left him without sufficient reason, that the minor child was residing with him, and that his aged father and child required his presence at Pendra Road.

1. Whether, in the circumstances of the matrimonial dispute, Civil Suit No. 04/2026 should be transferred from the First District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Raipur, under Section 24 CPC.

2. Whether the wife’s convenience and the practical hardship caused by the distance between the two courts should prevail over the husband’s asserted difficulty in travelling to Raipur.

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

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Court must consider the parties’ economic position, social circumstances, behavioural pattern, standard of living, means of livelihood, and sources of support; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience is to be given primacy.

This principle was drawn from N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199.

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

The Court found that the husband’s matrimonial proceeding was pending at Pendra Road, while the wife’s domestic-violence proceeding was already pending at Raipur.

The approximately 500-kilometre round-trip distance, coupled with the wife’s residence at Raipur and the absence of her parents, established substantial practical hardship in requiring her to attend proceedings at Pendra Road.

Applying the settled principle that the wife’s convenience generally receives priority in matrimonial transfer petitions, the Court held that the husband’s asserted responsibility for his aged father and minor child did not outweigh the hardship demonstrated by the wife.

The transfer was therefore considered necessary in the interests of justice.

Civil Suit No. 04/2026, Shailendra Kumar Sathe v. Smt. Priyanka Sathe, was transferred from the First District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Raipur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The transferring court was directed to transmit the record within 15 days of receiving or being furnished a copy of the order.

The Family Court, Raipur, was directed to endeavour to decide the matter preferably within four months of receiving the record, and the parties were directed to cooperate.

The Family Court was permitted to allow the husband to appear through video conferencing where his personal appearance was not necessary.

No order as to costs was made.