Matrimonial suit transferred to wife's place of residence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure convenience.

The Petitioner (wife) filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move Original Suit No. 76 of 2025—a restitution of conjugal rights suit filed by the Opposite Party (husband)—from the Family Court at Gumla to the Family Court at Dhanbad.

The Petitioner resides in Dhanbad, where she has already instituted two cases against the husband: a maintenance case under the Family Court's jurisdiction and a criminal complaint case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Despite personal service of notice on 13.01.2026, the Opposite Party failed to appear before the High Court.

1. Whether Original Suit No. 76 of 2025 should be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad for the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the High Court to transfer suits for the convenience of parties and interest of justice.

The precedent established by the Supreme Court in N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), which holds that when multiple proceedings involving common questions of fact and law are pending between the same parties in different courts, they should be tried together by the same judge to avoid multiplicity of trials and conflicting decisions.

The Court observed that the Petitioner, being a woman residing in Dhanbad, would face significant inconvenience traveling to Gumla to contest the husband's suit.

Examining the procedural history, the Court noted that the Petitioner had already initiated maintenance and criminal proceedings in Dhanbad.

Applying the principles from N.C.V. Aishwarya, the Court reasoned that since the issues in the husband's restitution suit and the wife's maintenance/criminal cases are interdependent and involve the same parties, a joint trial or trial in the same district is desirable to prevent conflicting judgments.

The Court further noted that the husband's failure to appear despite valid service indicated he was avoiding the proceedings.

It directed the transfer of Original Suit No. 76 of 2025 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad.

The Principal Judge at Gumla was ordered to transmit the records of the case to Dhanbad immediately for compliance.