Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred for bona fide wife’s hardship despite husband’s disability, with virtual-appearance safeguards.

The petitioner-wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 58 of 2024 from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandapur, to the Family Court, Jajpur.

She stated that she resided at Bari, Jajpur, approximately 70 kilometres from Anandapur, and, owing to financial constraints, lived with and depended upon her aged and ailing parents for herself and her approximately 16-year-old daughter.

Her maintenance proceeding, Cr.P. No. 105 of 2013, had been disposed of by the Family Court, Jajpur, and she had initiated execution proceedings, Cr.P. (Exn.) No. 112 of 2022, before the same Court for alleged non-compliance with the maintenance order.

The husband opposed the transfer, relying principally on a disability certificate dated 23 October 2025 certifying 60% disability and contending that he faced serious difficulty in travelling and attending proceedings.

Whether the petitioner-wife had established sufficient and bona fide hardship warranting transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 58 of 2024 from Anandapur to Jajpur in the interest of justice?

Whether the husband’s certified physical disability and consequent difficulty in attending proceedings outweighed or materially altered the hardship pleaded by the wife?

Whether the comparative hardship of the parties could be adequately addressed through virtual appearance, exemption from personal appearance, or other procedural safeguards, and, if not, what order would secure the ends of justice?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which proceedings may be transferred where the ends of justice so demand.

Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court reiterated that, in the prevailing socio-economic context, the wife’s convenience ordinarily deserves significant consideration, while not being treated as an absolute rule.

The Court also considered Anil Kumar Singh v. Dewanubhuti, T.R.P. (C) No. 1036 of 2021, decided on 6 February 2023, but held that the decision was fact-specific and did not preclude transfer where the comparative circumstances justified it.

The Court found that the wife’s residence approximately 70 kilometres from Anandapur, her financial dependence on aged and ailing parents, responsibility for her daughter, and the pendency of related maintenance-execution proceedings at Jajpur cumulatively established substantial practical hardship in attending the Anandapur proceedings.

Although the husband’s 60% disability certificate was issued after the transfer petition, the Court accepted it as a relevant and genuine circumstance rather than disregarding it solely because of its date.

However, the Court concluded that virtual participation could not be regarded as an equally effective substitute for transfer because the wife lived in a remote village and lacked adequate technical facilities, while stages such as conciliation, examination, and cross-examination could require personal presence.

The husband’s hardship was therefore addressed through directions permitting virtual appearance and limiting compulsory physical presence to occasions considered necessary by the Family Court.

Matrimonial Case No. 58 of 2024 was transferred from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandapur, to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Jajpur.

The Anandapur Court was directed to transmit the record, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment, and the Family Court, Jajpur was directed to re-register and proceed with the matter expeditiously, preferably by the end of June 2027.

The husband was permitted to seek virtual appearance on dates where physical presence was not indispensable, while physical attendance could be required for effective hearings, examination, cross-examination, conciliation, or other necessary stages.

The Family Court, Jajpur was further requested, for convenience, to list the connected maintenance-execution proceeding on the same dates as the matrimonial case until its disposal.