Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence to avoid hardship and consolidate pending suits.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 15 of 2026, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and pending before the Family Court, Mehsana, to the Family Court, Morbi.

The applicant was residing at Morbi, approximately 225 kilometres from Mehsana, and contended that attending proceedings at Mehsana would cause substantial hardship.

She had already instituted Family Suit No. 190 of 2025 against the respondent before the Family Court, Morbi, and had also filed a police complaint at ‘A’ Division, Morbi City Police Station, under Sections 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The respondent opposed the transfer but offered to bear the applicant’s travelling expenses and submitted that she could participate through video conferencing.

Whether Family Suit No. 15 of 2026 pending before the Family Court, Mehsana, ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Morbi under Section 24 CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s residence, the distance involved, and the relative hardship to the parties.

Whether consolidation of the proceedings between the parties before the Family Court, Morbi would be more convenient and desirable in the interests of justice.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw suits and proceedings where such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice.

The Court considered the settled principle that, in matrimonial transfer matters, the wife’s convenience and the comparative hardship likely to be caused to the parties are relevant considerations.

It relied on Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, concerning transfer of matrimonial proceedings and the assessment of convenience and hardship.

The Court also considered the desirability of having connected matrimonial proceedings heard by the same court.

The Court found that the applicant had already instituted a family proceeding against the respondent before the Family Court, Morbi, while the respondent subsequently instituted Family Suit No. 15 of 2026 at Mehsana.

The 225-kilometre one-way distance between Morbi and Mehsana created substantially greater inconvenience for the applicant, and the existence of related family and criminal proceedings at Morbi reinforced the practical need for transfer.

Although the respondent offered to bear travelling expenses and referred to video-conferencing facilities, the Court held that the applicant’s inconvenience and hardship were greater than those of the respondent.

Since the respondent was in any event required to attend the proceedings already pending at Morbi, transferring the Mehsana suit would enable both matrimonial proceedings to be heard and decided by the same Family Court.

The Court further preserved procedural flexibility by permitting the respondent to seek participation through video conferencing, subject to the Family Court’s discretion and any requirement of physical presence.

Family Suit No. 15 of 2026 pending before the Family Court, Mehsana, was transferred to the Family Court, Morbi, so that both proceedings between the parties could be heard and decided by the same court.

The Family Court, Morbi was directed to consider the transferred suit along with the existing proceeding, and the respondent was permitted to request video-conferencing facilities where appropriate.

The rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs, and direct service was permitted.