Long-distance travel and irregular maintenance justify transferring a matrimonial suit to the wife’s place of residence.

The opponent filed Family Suit No. 31 of 2025 against the applicant before the Family Court at Mundra-Kutch.

The applicant, who resided at Porbandar, sought transfer of the suit to the Family Court at Porbandar, stating that Mundra was approximately 400 kilometres away and that the distance caused hardship.

She also submitted that the opponent had not regularly paid maintenance and that she had previously sought recovery.

The opponent opposed transfer, asserting that he regularly paid maintenance and offering to meet the applicant’s travel expenses if she attended court at Mundra.

Whether the Family Suit pending at Mundra-Kutch should be transferred to the Family Court at Porbandar on account of the applicant’s residence and the hardship caused by the distance

Whether the opponent’s offer to pay the applicant’s travel costs was sufficient to justify retaining the suit at Mundra-Kutch

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding where transfer is warranted in the interests of justice.

The Court referred to Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, as authorities relevant to transfer of matrimonial proceedings. The judgment does not set out the specific propositions drawn from those decisions.

The Court weighed the applicant’s stated difficulty in travelling approximately 400 kilometres one way against the opponent’s offer to pay her travel expenses.

It also considered the applicant’s submission that maintenance had not been paid regularly.

On these circumstances, the Court found the applicant’s comparative hardship greater than the opponent’s and held that sufficient grounds existed to transfer the suit.

The Porbandar court was requested to have the transferred suit and any proceeding filed by the applicant heard by the same court; it may sympathetically consider a request for common hearing dates.

The opponent may also request participation by video conference or online mode, subject to the court’s determination that physical presence is not required.