Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to avoid multiplicity and serve the parties’ convenience.

The husband instituted Matrimonial Case No. 61 of 2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur, seeking dissolution of the marriage.

The wife sought transfer of the case to Patna, citing her unemployment, inability to meet travel and litigation expenses, and the pendency of connected proceedings there.

The husband opposed transfer, disputing the wife’s alleged hardship and noting that the matrimonial case had reached the evidence stage.

The High Court considered the parties’ submissions and the materials on record.

Whether Matrimonial Case No. 61 of 2021 should be transferred from the Family Court, Samastipur, to the Family Court, Patna, in light of proceedings between the parties pending at both locations and the convenience of the parties.

The judgment does not cite a specific statutory provision or precedent governing transfer.

It applies the principles that transfer may be warranted, in the interests of justice, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in different places and to secure the convenience of the parties.

The Court found from Annexure-R/2 that several proceedings between the parties were pending before courts in Patna and Samastipur.

It concluded that transferring the matrimonial case to Patna would avoid proceedings being pursued at different locations and would serve the parties’ convenience. On that basis, it considered transfer to be in the interests of justice, without separately resolving the parties’ disputed submissions concerning financial capacity, travel hardship, or the stage of evidence.

The Samastipur court was directed to transmit the entire record forthwith; any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.