Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence where distance causes substantial hardship.

The applicant-wife, residing at Dhrol, Jamnagar, sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 13 of 2026 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Gondal, to the Family Court at Dhrol, Jamnagar.

She contended that Gondal was approximately 180 kilometres away on a round-trip basis, causing her substantial hardship in attending the proceedings.

She further stated that she had initiated proceedings against the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act and that the respondent was not maintaining her.

Although duly served and granted a final opportunity, the respondent did not appear or contest the transfer application; the matter therefore remained uncontested.

Whether Family Suit No. 13 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Gondal should be transferred to the Family Court at Dhrol, Jamnagar under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience?

Whether the respondent-husband should be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the requirements of physical presence at particular stages?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding where such transfer is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered the established principle that, in matrimonial transfer matters, the convenience and hardship of the wife are important considerations, particularly where she would face substantial difficulty in travelling to the court where proceedings were instituted.

The Court relied on Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, which recognise the relevance of the wife’s convenience and the comparative hardship of the parties in exercising transfer jurisdiction.

The matrimonial proceeding sought to be transferred had been instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court found that the applicant’s averments were uncontroverted because the respondent, despite service and a reasonable opportunity to appear, did not contest the application.

It accepted that the approximately 180-kilometre round-trip distance between Gondal and Dhrol would cause the applicant significant hardship and inconvenience in attending the proceedings at Gondal.

Applying the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings and comparing the inconvenience likely to be suffered by the applicant with that of the respondent, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience substantially favoured the applicant-wife.

To mitigate any inconvenience to the respondent, the Court clarified that he could seek permission from the Family Court to participate through video conferencing or online mode, except where his physical presence was specifically required.

Family Suit No. 13 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Gondal was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Dhrol, Jamnagar.

The respondent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, and the Family Court was directed to accept such a request unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage of the proceedings.