Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred for the wife’s convenience despite their advanced procedural stage.

The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of C.P. No. 185 of 2025 from the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Jajpur, to the Court of the Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.

She alleged that, after desertion, she was residing with her ailing father, who had 70% permanent disability, and was facing mental, physical, psychological and financial hardship.

The husband opposed the transfer, contending that the matrimonial proceeding had reached the argument stage, and relied on Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi and Anindita Das v. Srijit Das.

The order sheet revealed that the wife had been unable to appear on several dates; on 20 June 2026, her evidence was closed on the assumption that she did not wish to adduce evidence, and the matter was thereafter posted for arguments.

The wife submitted that both parties were residing in Bhubaneswar, that her non-appearance resulted from financial hardship and the difficulty of travelling to Jajpur, and that transfer would enable her to seek recall of the order closing her evidence.

Whether, in the interests of justice and having regard principally to the wife’s convenience, C.P. No. 185 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Jajpur, to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar under Section 24 CPC.

Whether the fact that the proceeding had reached the stage of arguments justified refusal of the transfer, particularly when both parties were residing in Bhubaneswar and the wife had faced financial difficulty in attending the Jajpur proceedings.

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, under which proceedings may be transferred where the ends of justice so require.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Court relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, holding that courts must consider the economic position, social circumstances, lifestyle and livelihood-related difficulties of both parties; given the prevailing socio-economic conditions, the wife’s convenience should generally receive primary consideration.

The husband’s reliance on Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, and Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, was considered in opposition to the transfer request.

The Court found that both parties were residing in Bhubaneswar and that the wife’s repeated absence from the Jajpur proceedings was attributable, at least in part, to financial constraints and the practical difficulty of travelling a considerable distance.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily deserves consideration in matrimonial transfer applications, the Court held that Bhubaneswar would be more convenient for both parties.

The fact that the proceeding had reached the argument stage did not outweigh the wife’s demonstrated hardship, particularly because her evidence had been closed in her absence and transfer would allow her to seek appropriate relief, including recall of that order, before the transferee court.

The husband would suffer no significant prejudice because he was also serving and residing in Bhubaneswar.

The Jajpur Family Court was directed to transmit the record preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment.

The Bhubaneswar Family Court was directed to re-register the case, if necessary, proceed after granting due opportunity to both parties, and endeavour to dispose of it expeditiously.

Both parties were directed to ascertain the next date and purpose of listing, avoid unnecessary adjournments and cooperate in early disposal.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of; any interim order stood vacated.