Matrimonial proceedings may be transferred where the wife’s financial hardship and childcare obligations impede participation.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), of Family Suit No. 35 of 2025, instituted by the opponent-husband for divorce and pending before the Family Court, Jetpur, Rajkot, to the Family Court at Keshod, Junagadh.

The applicant had instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the opponent, which were pending before the Family Court at Keshod.

She submitted that she was not receiving maintenance, lacked the means to effectively contest the proceedings at Jetpur, and had to care for her minor daughter, making travel to Jetpur unduly burdensome.

The opponent opposed the transfer, contending that the applicant could participate through video conferencing and that his attendance at Keshod would not be required on every date.

1. Whether Family Suit No. 35 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court at Jetpur, Rajkot, to the Family Court at Keshod, Junagadh, under Section 24 CPC, considering the applicant’s inconvenience, financial position, responsibility for her minor child, and the pendency of related maintenance proceedings at Keshod.

2. Whether the convenience of the parties could adequately be addressed through video conferencing or other procedural directions instead of transferring the suit.

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where such transfer is necessary in the interests of justice.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in 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, reflecting the principle that, in matrimonial transfer matters, the wife’s practical inconvenience, financial circumstances, childcare responsibilities, and access to justice are relevant considerations.

The Court also considered the applicant’s maintenance proceedings under Section 144 BNSS pending at Keshod and the availability of video-conferencing facilities as a means of reducing the opponent’s inconvenience.

The Court found that the applicant’s inconvenience was substantially greater because she was not receiving maintenance, had limited means to participate effectively in the Jetpur proceedings, and was required to care for her minor daughter.

The existence of related maintenance proceedings at Keshod further supported having the matrimonial proceedings heard at the same place.

Although the opponent proposed video conferencing, the Court held that his inconvenience could be addressed through online participation, whereas the applicant’s financial and childcare difficulties materially affected her ability to defend the divorce proceedings.

Applying the principles governing matrimonial transfers and the interests of justice under Section 24 CPC, the Court therefore considered transfer appropriate.

The Keshod Court was requested to hear the transferred family suit along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 216 of 2026, the applicant’s pending maintenance proceeding, if practicable.

The opponent was permitted to seek common dates and participation through video conferencing, subject to the Court requiring his physical presence at any particular stage.

Rule was made absolute accordingly.