Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s forum when comparative convenience and the ends of justice so require.

The petitioner-wife filed TRP(C) No. 58 of 2025 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of C.P. No. 262 of 2022, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 27(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of marriage, from the Family Court, Puri to the Family Court, Cuttack.

She also filed TRP(C) No. 73 of 2025 seeking transfer of C.P. No. 318 of 2023, filed by the husband under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning maintenance, from Puri to Cuttack.

The wife stated that she had been residing and practising as a lawyer at Cuttack since her separation from the husband in October 2021 and that she was already prosecuting a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Cuttack.

In the dissolution proceeding, an earlier ex parte judgment was set aside by the High Court, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The wife’s application for interim maintenance was ultimately allowed in part, but the husband allegedly failed to pay the ordered amount.

The husband opposed transfer, relying on the earlier direction for expeditious disposal by the Family Court, Puri, the advanced stage of the proceeding, alleged financial hardship, and the possibility of the wife appearing through videoconferencing.

Whether, notwithstanding the earlier direction for expeditious disposal and the stage reached in C.P. No. 262 of 2022, the ends of justice required transfer of both matrimonial proceedings from the Family Court, Puri to the Family Court, Cuttack.

Whether the wife’s convenience and the comparative hardship to both parties justified transfer under Section 24 CPC.

Whether the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 23784 of 2024 or the absence of a stay order therein precluded transfer of C.P. No. 318 of 2023.

Whether videoconferencing could be directed as an alternative to transferring the proceedings.

Section 24 CPC confers discretionary power on the High Court to transfer a suit, appeal, or other proceeding where the ends of justice so require.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Court must consider the comparative convenience and practical circumstances of both parties; ordinarily, the wife’s convenience is an important consideration, but it is not an inflexible or exclusive rule.

Relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the Court held that economic circumstances, place of residence, livelihood, social circumstances, and the practical burden of attending matrimonial proceedings must be assessed, with the wife’s convenience generally receiving significant weight.

Under Santhini, videoconferencing cannot ordinarily be directed by the High Court in a transfer petition; it may be considered by the Family Court in appropriate circumstances, particularly after settlement efforts fail and subject to the Court’s discretion.

The pendency of another proceeding, absent a subsisting order staying or prohibiting further proceedings, does not by itself remove the High Court’s power to transfer a case.

The Court found that the wife was residing and practising at Cuttack, had limited financial means, and was already required to attend a connected matrimonial maintenance proceeding there, whereas the husband was based at Bhubaneswar and would face comparatively less inconvenience in attending Cuttack rather than Puri.

Although the dissolution proceeding had progressed and the evidence of P.W.1 had been partly recorded, the Court held that this factor was not decisive because the proceeding had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution, later restored, and had not concluded within the period contemplated by the earlier expeditious-disposal direction.

The Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that the transfer petitions were filed merely to delay the proceedings.

The pendency of the writ petition concerning C.P. No. 318 of 2023 did not bar transfer because no order staying further proceedings was in force; however, the transferee Court would remain bound by all subsisting orders passed in that writ petition.

The Court declined to treat videoconferencing as a mandatory substitute for transfer, leaving that issue to the discretion of the Family Court in accordance with the applicable rules and the requirements of effective evidence and cross-examination.

TRP(C) Nos. 58 and 73 of 2025 were allowed.

The Family Court, Puri was directed to transmit the records of C.P. Nos. 262 of 2022 and 318 of 2023 to the Family Court, Cuttack, preferably within one week of production of the certified judgment.

The transferee Court was directed not to mechanically reopen evidence already recorded, to comply with subsisting orders in W.P.(C) No. 23784 of 2024, and to proceed expeditiously, with an endeavour to conclude C.P. No. 262 of 2022 by the end of March 2027, subject to the parties’ cooperation and any intervening orders.