Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred where the wife’s childcare and financial hardship substantially outweigh the husband’s travel burden.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 148 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband before the Family Court at Visnagar, to the Family Court at Ahmedabad.

The applicant was residing in Ahmedabad with the parties’ minor daughter, aged approximately nine years, and contended that travelling to Visnagar would cause hardship and inconvenience.

The applicant had previously initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, in which maintenance had been granted and arrears remained unpaid. A recovery application was pending before that Court. The respondent was also facing a criminal trial at Ahmedabad arising from a police complaint lodged by the applicant. The respondent, employed as a bus conductor, opposed the transfer but offered to bear the applicant’s travelling expenses, contending that Ahmedabad and Visnagar were approximately 84 kilometres apart.

Whether Family Suit No. 148 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Visnagar ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Ahmedabad under Section 24 CPC, having regard to the comparative hardship and inconvenience of the parties?

Whether the respondent could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing or other online mode, subject to the requirements of a particular stage of the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw suits, appeals, or other proceedings where such transfer is considered appropriate in the interests of justice.

In matrimonial-transfer matters, the Court considered the comparative inconvenience faced by the parties, particularly the wife’s responsibility for a minor child, rather than relying solely on geographical distance or the respondent’s offer to pay travelling expenses.

The Court 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, which recognise the relevance of the wife’s practical hardship and surrounding circumstances in determining applications for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court also recognised that participation through video conferencing may be permitted where appropriate, unless physical presence is necessary at a particular stage.

The Court found that the applicant-wife’s inconvenience was substantially greater because she was required to care for the parties’ nine-year-old minor daughter and lacked effective financial support, while maintenance arrears remained unpaid.

The respondent’s existing obligations to attend the maintenance-recovery proceedings and criminal trial at Ahmedabad further demonstrated that requiring him to attend the matrimonial proceedings there would not cause comparable hardship. The Court also considered the respondent’s occupation as a bus conductor and concluded that travel to Ahmedabad would not impose significant inconvenience on him.

Applying the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings and weighing the comparative hardship of both parties, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant.

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