Matrimonial suit transferred to wife’s jurisdiction for consolidation with related maintenance proceedings.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 2057 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Vadodara, to the Family Court, Mehsana.

The applicant had also initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2026, before the Family Court, Kheralu at Mehsana, and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2026, before the concerned Court at Satlasana, Mehsana.

The applicant contended that transfer would facilitate the joint or coordinated hearing of the connected proceedings.

The respondent opposed the transfer on the grounds of hardship arising from his temporary employment and his responsibility to care for his aged parents, but requested that, if transfer were granted, he be permitted to participate through video conferencing and be given common dates for the proceedings.

Whether Family Suit No. 2057 of 2025 pending before the Family Court, Vadodara, should be transferred to the Family Court, Mehsana under Section 24 of the CPC, having regard to the connected matrimonial and maintenance proceedings pending in Mehsana?

Whether the respondent should be permitted to appear through video conferencing and seek common dates for the transferred family suit and the maintenance proceedings?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw proceedings where such transfer is expedient in the interests of justice.

The Court considered the principle that, in matrimonial and family disputes, the convenience of the parties and the desirability of having related proceedings heard at one place are relevant factors in determining a transfer application.

It 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 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, concerning the transfer of matrimonial proceedings in the interests of justice and convenience.

The Court also considered the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS, Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as connected proceedings arising from the matrimonial relationship.

The Court found that the parties were already litigating connected matrimonial, maintenance, and domestic-violence proceedings in Mehsana, while the respondent’s matrimonial suit was pending in Vadodara.

Since the respondent was required to attend the proceedings at Mehsana in any event, and since hearing the family suit alongside the maintenance proceedings at the same place would promote procedural convenience and consistency, the Court considered transfer desirable in the interests of justice.

The respondent’s concerns regarding employment and responsibility towards his aged parents were addressed by permitting him to seek common hearing dates and to request participation through video conferencing, subject to the Family Court’s discretion and the requirement of physical presence at particular stages.

Family Suit No. 2057 of 2025 pending before the Family Court, Vadodara, was transferred to the Family Court, Mehsana, specifically for hearing by the Family Court, Kheralu at Mehsana, along with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2026 under Section 144 of the BNSS.

The respondent was permitted to request common dates for both matters and to seek appearance through video conferencing, which the Family Court was directed to consider sympathetically unless physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

The rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.