Police Official's Employment and Available Video Conferencing Facilities Preclude Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings for Inconvenience

The applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer Family Suit No. 2960 of 2024 from the Principal Family Court, Ahmedabad, to the Family Court, Mehsana.

The applicant contended that as she resides in Mehsana (77km away) and must care for an eight-year-old son, attending the Ahmedabad proceedings caused undue hardship.

The opponent (husband) argued that the applicant is a Head Constable at Mehsana City Police Station, accustomed to traveling for duty, and that the suit had already reached the stage of cross-examination.

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds of hardship or inconvenience to warrant the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC

2. Whether the stage of the proceedings and the professional status of the applicant are relevant factors in exercising discretionary jurisdiction for transfer

Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which grants High Courts discretionary power to transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings.

The court balanced the principle of "convenience of the parties" with the necessity of ensuring the transfer does not cause an "unjust delay" in a trial that has already reached an advanced stage.

Modern litigation principles, specifically the use of Video Conferencing facilities in Family Courts to mitigate physical distance issues.

The court analyzed the applicant’s claim of hardship against her professional reality as a Head Constable, noting that her duty inherently requires travel, thus weakening the claim that a 77km distance was an insurmountable inconvenience.

The court emphasized that the suit was already at the stage of cross-examination and the applicant was effectively represented by counsel who had filed a written statement.

Regarding the care of the minor son, the court reasoned that as a working police officer, the applicant is already required to be away from home, and thus the trial location was not a primary factor in child-rearing difficulties.

The court noted that the maintenance proceeding in Mehsana was filed after the Ahmedabad suit, and technological solutions like video conferencing were available to satisfy the requirements of justice without shifting the forum.

The application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.

The court directed the Family Court, Ahmedabad, to allow the applicant to participate via video conference upon request, unless her physical presence is strictly required for cross-examination.