Prolonged acquiescence may defeat a wife’s request to transfer matrimonial proceedings.

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of M.C. No. 89/2021, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

She relied on her residence in Bengaluru, the burden of travel to Anekal, responsibility for the children, ill-health, and irregular payment of interim maintenance.

The respondent opposed transfer, relying on the petitioner’s participation in the proceedings since 2022 and the late filing of the transfer petition; he also undertook to deposit three months’ maintenance and cooperate in concluding the trial within three months.

Whether the pending matrimonial proceedings should be transferred from Anekal to the Family Court, Bengaluru, having regard to the petitioner’s convenience and the circumstances pleaded.

Whether the petitioner’s delay and participation in the proceedings, together with the respondent’s undertakings and the possibility of video-conference participation, justified refusing transfer.

The petition was considered under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings.

The Court stated that, ordinarily, a wife’s convenience weighs in a request to transfer matrimonial proceedings, but treated that consideration as not determinative in the circumstances of this case.

The Court considered the petitioner’s participation in the Anekal proceedings over several years, including her appearance in 2022 and subsequent application to recall PW.1 for cross-examination, as evidence of acquiescence.

It found that no medical documents or sufficient particulars supported the ill-health claim, and that travel and childcare concerns did not warrant transfer, particularly given the children’s stated ages and the possibility of video-conference participation.

The respondent’s undertaking to cooperate with an expedited trial and deposit three months’ maintenance further weighed against transfer.

It directed that any request by the petitioner to participate by video conference be considered sympathetically and that the trial be expedited, preferably within three months from the next hearing date, stated to be 27 October 2026.

The respondent’s undertaking to deposit three months’ maintenance in one lump sum on the next hearing date was recorded; any amount deposited was to be paid to the petitioner, subject to adjustment against arrears, if any.