Related family proceedings may be transferred under Section 24 CPC for consolidated adjudication before one court.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) of Family Suit No. 471 of 2026, pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, to the Family Court at Surendranagar.

She contended that travelling approximately 175 kilometres each way between Surendranagar and Ahmedabad caused substantial hardship and inconvenience.

She further submitted that two other proceedings between the parties, including proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, were already pending before the Family Court at Surendranagar.

The opponent opposed the transfer but submitted that, if the suit were transferred, all proceedings could be heard by one Family Court at Surendranagar and that he could be permitted to participate through video conferencing.

The other proceedings identified by the Court were Civil Misc. Application No. 46 of 2024 under the Guardians and Wards Act and HMP Suit No. 4 of 2025 filed by the applicant.

Whether Family Suit No. 471 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Surendranagar under Section 24 of the CPC, having regard to the parties’ convenience and the pendency of connected proceedings at Surendranagar.

Whether appropriate directions should be issued to facilitate coordinated hearing of the proceedings and permit the opponent to appear through video conferencing or online mode.

The Court applied Section 24 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw suits and other proceedings when such transfer is warranted in the interests of justice, convenience, or effective adjudication.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, reflecting the principle that, in matrimonial and family disputes, the convenience of the parties and the desirability of avoiding parallel proceedings are relevant considerations in determining transfer applications.

The Court also considered the connected proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Guardians and Wards Act as part of the overall circumstances relevant to transfer.

The Court found that two connected proceedings between the parties were already pending before the Family Court at Surendranagar, including one instituted by the opponent under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Consolidating or coordinating the proceedings before the same Family Court would promote convenience, avoid fragmented adjudication, and facilitate consistent consideration of the parties’ matrimonial and child-custody disputes.

Applying the transfer principles referred to in paragraph 6, the Court concluded that it was desirable to transfer the Ahmedabad family suit to Surendranagar.

To mitigate any inconvenience to the opponent, the Court permitted him to seek common dates and participation through video conferencing, subject to the concerned Court’s assessment of whether physical presence was necessary at any particular stage.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar was requested to ensure that the transferred suit was heard and decided by the Court already dealing with Civil Misc. Application No. 46 of 2024 and HMP Suit No. 4 of 2025.

The opponent was permitted to request common hearing dates and appearance through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the Court’s discretion and any requirement of physical presence.

Rule was made absolute accordingly.