MP HC Transfers Husband’s Divorce Case To Dabra, Where Wife Has Three Related Matrimonial Proceedings Pending

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the husband’s divorce case, Case No. RCS HM/570/2024, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, to the Additional District Judge, Dabra

She submitted that three matrimonial proceedings initiated by her—a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, and a criminal proceeding under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code—were pending at Dabra, and that the wife’s convenience and the overlap between proceedings favoured transfer

The husband opposed transfer, relying on a property dispute pending at Bhopal and the fact that the divorce case had been filed in 2024; he also cited Pallavi Kumari v. Sunil Kumar and Prerna Choudhary v. Anurag Choudhary

The Court noted that the Bhopal case concerned property, not a matrimonial dispute, and that the three matrimonial proceedings were pending at Dabra.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to transfer a proceeding between courts as appropriate.

In considering transfer, the Court treated the wife’s convenience as relevant and considered whether related, interdependent proceedings between the same parties, raising common factual questions, should be heard at the same place

The Court referred to N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, in support of considering the wife’s convenience

It distinguished Pallavi Kumari v. Sunil Kumar, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2040/2018, decided 29 November 2022, and Prerna Choudhary v. Anurag Choudhary, MCC No. 2328/2022, decided 1 August 2023, on their facts

The Court found that all three proceedings initiated by the wife were matrimonial matters pending at Dabra, whereas the Bhopal proceeding was a property dispute

It concluded that the wife’s convenience, together with the common factual questions and interdependence of the matrimonial proceedings, favoured hearing the divorce case at Dabra.

The cited decisions did not alter that conclusion: in Pallavi Kumari, the circumstances included the timing and location of the wife’s existing proceedings, while in Prerna Choudhary the wife had appeared in the case for approximately four and a half years before seeking transfer

The Principal Judge was directed to transfer the record forthwith.