Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to the wife’s residence where travel causes greater hardship.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 1863 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Surat, to the Family Court, Ahmedabad.

The applicant was residing at Ahmedabad, while the distance between Ahmedabad and Surat was approximately 240 kilometres one way, causing her hardship in attending the proceedings.

She had also instituted maintenance proceedings against the respondent at Ahmedabad, in which the respondent was required to appear.

The mediation proceedings failed, as the mediation report recorded that there was no possibility of settlement.

The respondent did not file a reply opposing the transfer application, and the applicant’s averments consequently remained uncontroverted.

The applicant also stated that she was not receiving financial assistance from the respondent.

Whether Family Suit No. 1863 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Surat, to the Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s residence, financial circumstances, and the inconvenience of travel.

Whether the respondent-husband could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing, subject to the requirement of his physical presence at particular stages.

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 appropriate in the interests of justice.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the Court considered the relative hardship and convenience of the parties, particularly the inconvenience faced by the wife, her financial position, and the location of related proceedings.

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, for the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings and assessment of comparative inconvenience.

The Court found that the applicant resided in Ahmedabad, whereas the respondent had instituted the matrimonial suit at Surat, approximately 240 kilometres away.

Her difficulty in travelling to Surat was aggravated by the absence of financial assistance from the respondent, while related maintenance proceedings were already pending at Ahmedabad.

Since the respondent had not filed a reply, these material averments remained uncontroverted.

Applying the principle of comparative convenience and hardship under Section 24 CPC, the Court concluded that the inconvenience to the applicant would be substantially greater than that to the respondent, warranting transfer in the interests of justice.

To mitigate any inconvenience to the respondent, the Court clarified that he could seek permission from the Family Court to participate through video conferencing, unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

Family Suit No. 1863 of 2025 pending before the Family Court, Surat, was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 24 CPC.

The respondent was left at liberty to request participation through video conferencing, which the Family Court was directed to permit unless physical attendance was required for a particular proceeding.