In matrimonial transfer proceedings, the wife’s convenience prevails, particularly when she cares for a minor child.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Civil Suit No. 27A/2026— a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955— from the Family Court, Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Surajpur.

The parties married on 12 March 2023 and have a minor daughter aged approximately three years. The applicant alleged physical and mental harassment and stated that she was residing with her parents at Village Tara, District Surajpur, along with the child.

Other proceedings were pending at Bilaspur and Surajpur, including domestic-violence proceedings, maintenance proceedings, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and criminal proceedings.

The applicant submitted that the distance between Surajpur and Bilaspur was approximately 500 kilometres to and fro and that travelling with a minor child would cause her considerable hardship.

The respondent, though served, did not appear.

1. Whether the husband’s divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Bilaspur, should be transferred to the Family Court, Surajpur under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the wife’s convenience and the pendency of related proceedings.

2. Whether the distance involved, the applicant’s status as a woman residing with a minor child, and the pendency of connected proceedings at Surajpur justified transfer in the interests of justice.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a court may transfer a suit or proceeding where the ends of justice so require.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, requires consideration of the parties’ economic condition, social circumstances, behavioural pattern, standard of living, livelihood, and sources of support; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience is to be given due weight.

Relying also on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Court reiterated that, in matrimonial proceedings instituted by the husband, the wife’s convenience is generally to be preferred.

The Court found that several related proceedings were pending before courts at Surajpur and that the applicant was residing there with her three-year-old daughter.

In light of the approximately 500-kilometre round trip between Surajpur and Bilaspur, the Court considered it difficult for the applicant to repeatedly attend the divorce proceedings at Bilaspur, particularly as a woman caring for a minor child.

Applying the Supreme Court’s principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily merits preference in matrimonial transfer applications, the Court held that transfer would further the ends of justice under Section 24 CPC.

Civil Suit No. 27A/2026, Neeraj Sharma v. Pragya Sharma, was transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, to the Family Court, Surajpur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

The Family Court, Bilaspur, was directed to transmit the record within 15 days of receiving the order. The Family Court, Surajpur, was directed to endeavour to decide the matter preferably within four months of receiving the record, and the parties were directed to cooperate in its early disposal.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.