In matrimonial transfer proceedings, the wife’s convenience remains the paramount consideration.

Facts

The petitioner-wife sought transfer of C.P. No. 416 of 2021, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, from the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, to the Family Court, Nayagarh.

Source reference: p.2, paras. 1, 3

She stated that, after being deserted, she was residing with her aged and ailing parents at Badagorada, Nayagarh; that Bhubaneswar was more than 120 kilometres away; that she lacked financial and familial support to attend the proceedings; and that she was a cardiac patient.

Source reference: p.2, para. 3

She had also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Bhubaneswar, being Cr.P. No. 200 of 2021, which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution on 20 December 2025.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 3; p.6, para. 10

The husband opposed the transfer orally, contending that the wife had herself instituted the maintenance proceeding at Bhubaneswar and that he might face difficulty attending Nayagarh because of his employment in a private company outside Odisha.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5–7

Issues

Whether, having regard to the wife’s health, financial constraints, residence with her aged parents, and apprehended hardship in travelling to Bhubaneswar, C.P. No. 416 of 2021 ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Nayagarh.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 3–8

Whether the husband could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceeding through virtual mode, subject to the directions of the Family Court, Nayagarh.

Source reference: pp. 8–9, paras. 16–18

Law Applied

The Court exercised the transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applying the principle that transfer must be ordered where the ends of justice so require.

Source reference: p.4, para. 8

In matrimonial proceedings, the Court relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, which holds that courts must consider the parties’ economic condition, social circumstances, standard of living, livelihood, and support systems, and that, generally, the wife’s convenience is the paramount consideration.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 8

The Court also relied on Chittaranjan Padhiary & Ors. v. Jasmin Das, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 91, for the principle that parties stationed or serving at different places may be permitted to appear through virtual mode in the interest of justice and speedy disposal.

Source reference: p.5, para. 9

The underlying matrimonial proceeding was instituted under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Source reference: p.2, para. 3

Reasoning

The Court accepted that the wife’s residence at Nayagarh, cardiac condition, financial constraints, lack of assistance, and the substantial distance from Bhubaneswar created genuine difficulty in attending the matrimonial proceeding.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–4

Although she had initially filed the maintenance proceeding at Bhubaneswar, its subsequent dismissal for non-prosecution supported her explanation that she was unable to pursue litigation there because of her health, financial limitations, and travel difficulties.

Source reference: p.6, para. 10

The husband’s objection was considered, but he had not filed any written opposition and his current place of employment was uncertain; in any event, the inconvenience caused to him could be mitigated through virtual participation.

Source reference: pp. 1, 3–4, paras. 2, 5–7

Applying the settled rule that the wife’s convenience ordinarily receives primacy in matrimonial transfer matters, the Court found that the ends of justice required transfer to Nayagarh.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 10–12

Holding

The transfer petition was allowed.

The Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, was directed to transmit the records of C.P. No. 416 of 2021 to the Family Court, Nayagarh, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment.

Source reference: p.7, para. 13

The Nayagarh Family Court was directed to re-register the proceeding, if necessary, and endeavour to conclude it preferably within six months of receiving the records.

Source reference: p.7, paras. 14–15

The husband was permitted to appear through virtual mode, and both parties were granted liberty to seek virtual appearance with the court’s permission where physical attendance caused difficulty; however, physical presence could be required for effective hearings, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Source reference: pp. 8–9, para. 18

The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Source reference: p.9, paras. 19–20

The interim order dated 28 October 2025 was vacated.

Source reference: p.10, para. 23