Mere wife’s convenience, child’s schooling, or connected maintenance proceedings do not warrant transfer under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Case No. 595 of 2025, instituted by the opposite party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar

She contended that she resided at Gautam Budh Nagar with her minor daughter, who was pursuing her education there, and that she was the child’s primary caregiver. Repeated travel to Aligarh was alleged to cause financial hardship and adversely affect the child’s education and welfare

The applicant also relied on the pendency of Maintenance Petition No. 98 of 2025 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, arguing that transfer would avoid parallel proceedings and facilitate effective adjudication

The opposite party opposed the transfer, contending that the applicant’s parental and maternal homes were situated in Aligarh and that the application was intended to delay the restitution proceedings

He further submitted that Aligarh was an established educational centre and that the applicant’s decision to educate the child at Gautam Budh Nagar was a matter of personal choice

Whether the applicant established genuine hardship, compelling inconvenience, or exceptional circumstances warranting transfer of the Section 9 HMA proceedings from Aligarh to Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 24 CPC?

Whether the minor child’s schooling at Gautam Budh Nagar and the pendency of maintenance proceedings before that Court justified transfer to avoid multiplicity of litigation and secure the ends of justice?

The Court applied Section 24 CPC, under which transfer jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only where the ends of justice demonstrably require it

The applicant bears the burden of showing by cogent material that continuation before the existing court would cause genuine hardship, deny a fair opportunity to prosecute or defend the case, or result in failure of justice

Convenience of the wife, welfare of a minor child, pendency of connected proceedings, balance of convenience, convenience of witnesses, availability of evidence, stage of litigation, and likelihood of prejudice are relevant but not conclusive considerations

The Court also recognised the plaintiff’s position as dominus litis and held that a competent forum lawfully chosen by the plaintiff should not ordinarily be displaced

Relying on Anjana Rana v. Navin Singh, 2026 (2) ADJ 2284, the Court reiterated that mere inconvenience or preference for another forum is insufficient for transfer

The Court further treated proceedings under Section 9 HMA and Section 144 BNSS as distinct proceedings whose pendency before different courts does not, without demonstrable prejudice or risk of conflicting adjudications, require transfer or consolidation

The Court held that the applicant had not produced material showing that attending proceedings at Aligarh was impracticable or that travel would effectively deprive her of a fair opportunity to contest the case

Although the child’s welfare and the applicant’s caregiving responsibilities were relevant, the child’s schooling at Gautam Budh Nagar did not create an automatic or overriding entitlement to transfer

Similarly, the maintenance proceedings pending at Gautam Budh Nagar did not establish prejudice, conflicting adjudications, or any failure of justice warranting transfer, particularly because the two proceedings differed in their nature and object

Balancing the applicant’s asserted inconvenience against the opposite party’s right to proceed before the competent forum chosen by him, the Court concluded that the threshold under Section 24 CPC was not met

The Court also noted that the Section 9 proceedings had remained stalled during the transfer application and interim protection, which further weighed against continued interruption of those proceedings

The interim order, if any, was vacated. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, was directed to proceed with the Section 9 HMA case expeditiously and endeavour to conclude it in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations made in the transfer proceedings