Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred where distance and childcare impose greater hardship on the wife.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 1424 of 2024, instituted by the respondent-husband and pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, to the Family Court at Gandhidham, Kutch.

She submitted that the distance between Gandhidham and Ahmedabad was more than 280 kilometres and that, owing to her responsibility for the minor child, attending proceedings at Ahmedabad would cause her substantial hardship and inconvenience.

The respondent opposed the transfer and relied upon the decision of the High Court in MCA No. 1756 of 2025.

The Court noted that the applicant was illiterate, dependent upon maintenance, and not similarly situated to the educated or working applicant considered in the precedent relied upon by the respondent.

Whether Family Suit No. 1424 of 2024 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Gandhidham under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience?

Whether the respondent’s inconvenience could be mitigated by permitting him to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing or other online means?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw proceedings where the circumstances justify such intervention, including to prevent undue hardship and secure the ends of justice.

It 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, recognising the relevance of the wife’s convenience and hardship in matrimonial transfer applications.

The Court also referred to Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150, for the principle that participation through video conferencing may address the inconvenience faced by the party opposing transfer.

The Court exercised its discretionary power by comparing the relative inconvenience likely to be caused to both parties.

The Court found that requiring the applicant-wife to travel more than 280 kilometres from Gandhidham to Ahmedabad, while also caring for a minor child, would cause her greater hardship.

In assessing comparative convenience, the Court considered her illiteracy, lack of financial independence, and dependence on maintenance from the respondent.

It held that the decision relied upon by the respondent was distinguishable because the applicant in that case was educated or a working professional and was therefore not similarly situated.

The respondent’s inconvenience was considered less substantial because he could seek permission from the Family Court to participate through video conferencing, except where his physical presence was specifically necessary.

On this comparative assessment, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant-wife.

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