Matrimonial Proceedings May Be Conducted via Video Conferencing to Obviate Transfer of Cases Between Jurisdictions.

The petitioner (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking the transfer of matrimonial proceedings (Case No. RCSHM 132A/25) from the Court of the III District Judge, Mahitpur, District Ujjain, to the Family Court, Dewas.

The petitioner initially cited typographical errors regarding the district names, which were corrected during the proceedings.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel suggested that she be permitted to appear before the Ujjain court via video conferencing (VC) instead of a physical transfer of the case.

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending at Ujjain should be transferred to Dewas under Section 24 of the CPC.

2. Whether the use of video conferencing technology can serve as an alternative to the physical transfer of a case to mitigate hardship for the parties.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the general power of transfer and withdrawal of cases.

Supreme Court precedent in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150, which established that in matrimonial disputes where parties reside outside the court's jurisdiction, technology such as video conferencing should be utilized to obviate the need for personal appearance and minimize hardship to both spouses.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to stay proceedings at an inconvenient forum in favor of a more appropriate one.

The Court observed that while the petitioner sought a transfer, the advancement of technology provides a middle ground that balances the convenience of both parties.

Following the guidelines in Krishna Veni Nagam, the Court noted that both Ujjain (where the case is pending) and Dewas (where the petitioner resides) are equipped with video conferencing facilities.

The Court reasoned that since the respondent (husband) instituted the divorce petition in Ujjain, a full transfer might result in a different set of hardships for him; thus, allowing the petitioner to contest via VC from her home district satisfies the ends of justice.

The Court further analyzed that personal appearance should only be mandated by the Family Court when absolutely necessary for the trial.

It directed that the petitioner shall contest the proceedings pending at the Family Court, Ujjain, through video conferencing from Dewas; however, if personal presence is required, the respondent is ordered to pay all travel, lodging, and boarding expenses for the petitioner and an attendant.

The petition was disposed of with directions to the Ujjain court to proceed in accordance with the safeguards mentioned in the Krishna Veni Nagam judgment.