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

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 2093 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband and pending before the Family Court at Vadodara, to the Family Court at Mehsana.

The applicant resided at Mehsana with the parties’ minor child, aged approximately 18 months, for whose care she was responsible.

She had also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being Family Suit No. 102 of 2026, against the respondent before the Family Court at Mehsana.

The distance between Mehsana and Vadodara was approximately 190 kilometres one way, causing hardship and inconvenience to the applicant in attending the Vadodara proceedings.

Although the respondent was served with notice on 25 April 2026 and was granted a further opportunity to appear, he neither appeared nor contested the application.

Whether Family Suit No. 2093 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Mehsana under Section 24 of the CPC, considering the applicant-wife’s residence, care of the minor child, and the distance involved?

Whether the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending Section 9 HMA proceedings at Mehsana should be heard by the same court, with appropriate procedural accommodation for the respondent?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

In exercising this discretion in matrimonial proceedings, the Court considered the comparative hardship and inconvenience likely to be suffered by the parties, particularly the wife’s residence, responsibility for a minor child, and the distance she would be required to travel.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in 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; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, as cited authorities on transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court also directed coordination of connected proceedings to avoid inconvenience and inconsistent scheduling.

The Court found that the applicant-wife was residing at Mehsana with the parties’ 18-month-old child and was responsible for the child’s care.

Requiring her to travel approximately 190 kilometres each way to attend proceedings at Vadodara would cause substantial hardship.

That hardship was further aggravated because her own Section 9 HMA proceedings were already pending before the Family Court at Mehsana, whereas the respondent-husband would in any event be required to travel to Mehsana for those proceedings.

The Court therefore concluded that the comparative inconvenience was significantly greater for the applicant than for the respondent.

The respondent’s failure to appear despite service meant that the applicant’s assertions remained uncontroverted.

Applying the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings and the interests-of-justice standard under Section 24 CPC, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of transfer.

Family Suit No. 2093 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara was directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Mehsana.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mehsana, was requested to ensure that the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending Section 9 HMA proceedings were heard by the same court.

The respondent was permitted to seek common dates for both proceedings and, where appropriate, participation through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the requirement of physical presence at particular stages.