Section 21-A HMA encompasses Section 9 proceedings, permitting connected divorce proceedings to be transferred to the same court.

The parties married at Chhindwara on 15 February 2021 and cohabited at Bhopal until matrimonial differences arose in 2022.

The husband resided at Bhopal, while the wife, whose parental home was at Chhindwara, was employed and residing at Thane, Maharashtra.

Four proceedings arose from the matrimonial dispute: a withdrawn maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC at Bhopal; the wife’s pending application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the JMFC, Bhopal; the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Family Court, Bhopal; and the wife’s divorce petition under Section 13 HMA, pending before the Family Court, Chhindwara.

The husband sought transfer of the divorce petition from Chhindwara to Bhopal, while the wife sought transfer of the Bhopal proceedings to Chhindwara.

The two Bhopal proceedings had been pending since 2022, and the wife’s evidence in the Chhindwara divorce proceeding had been completed, with only the husband’s evidence remaining.

The Court exercised its transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the matrimonial proceedings and under Section 407 CrPC/Section 447 BNSS in relation to the Domestic Violence Act proceeding.

Transfer jurisdiction is to be exercised by balancing the parties’ respective convenience, the stage and duration of proceedings, and the need to avoid unnecessary hardship or conflicting adjudications.

Section 21-A HMA permits transfer of later matrimonial proceedings where substantially overlapping issues and evidence arise; relying on Balbir Singh Gurjar v. Nitu, (2015) 4 MPLJ 184, the Court held that Section 21-A also covers proceedings under Section 9 HMA, although such proceedings are not expressly enumerated in the provision.

Where proceedings under Sections 9 and 13 HMA involve substantially the same evidence and overlapping questions, they should ordinarily be heard by the same court to promote consistency and avoid conflicting decisions.

The Court rejected transfer of the two Bhopal proceedings to Chhindwara because the wife was not a stranger to Bhopal: she had previously resided there in a rented house after the matrimonial relationship deteriorated and had regularly participated in the proceedings there from 2022 to 2026.

Further, she was presently residing at Thane, not Chhindwara, and travel from Thane to Bhopal was comparatively more convenient than travel to Chhindwara; transferring the cases would therefore impose disproportionate inconvenience on the husband, who resided at Bhopal.

Conversely, the Section 9 HMA proceeding at Bhopal and the Section 13 HMA divorce proceeding at Chhindwara involved overlapping evidence and issues.

Applying Section 21-A HMA and Balbir Singh Gurjar, the Court considered it appropriate that both matters be adjudicated by the same Family Court, notwithstanding that the divorce proceeding had progressed further.

To mitigate the wife’s travel burden, the Court directed that she could ordinarily participate through video conferencing.

MCC No. 721 of 2026 was allowed, and RCS HM No. 128 of 2025, the wife’s Section 13 HMA divorce petition pending at Chhindwara, was transferred to the Family Court at Bhopal, where it was directed to be heard by the same court dealing with RCS HM No. 1634 of 2022 under Section 9 HMA.

The wife was granted liberty to appear through video conferencing on all dates except those on which her personal presence was considered necessary to secure the ends of justice, subject to the applicable High Court Rules of 2020.