Section 24 CPC permits matrimonial transfer when connected proceedings and childcare responsibilities favour the transferee forum.

The petitioner, Ravina Dahiya, filed a petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of HMA No. 1316/2025, Aman v. Ravina Dahiya, from the Family Court, South-West District, Dwarka, to the Family Court, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi.

She relied on the pendency of five connected proceedings before, or triable by, the Rohini Courts, including a domestic violence complaint, a maintenance petition, and criminal proceedings arising from three FIRs.

She also stated that she resided in rented accommodation near her parental home at Pooth Khurd and was responsible for caring for her minor twin daughters, making attendance at the Dwarka Court difficult.

The respondent opposed the transfer, alleging that he faced a threat at Rohini and that the petitioner had fabricated residence documents; however, these assertions were not supported by corresponding pleadings or documentary material.

Whether, in the interests of justice and having regard to the parties’ relative convenience, the matrimonial proceeding should be transferred from the Family Court at Dwarka to the Family Court at Rohini under Section 24 CPC.

Whether the respondent’s unsubstantiated allegations of threat at Rohini and fabrication of residence documents were sufficient to defeat the petitioner’s request for transfer.

Whether the respondent could claim a unilateral choice of forum merely because the present matrimonial proceeding was the only proceeding in which he could allegedly choose the place of litigation.

Section 24 CPC confers a discretionary power of transfer, to be exercised in furtherance of the interests of justice; the court must consider the circumstances and relative convenience of the parties, including their economic position, place of residence, responsibility for minor children, and the inconvenience of conducting proceedings at the existing forum.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the hardship faced by a spouse responsible for the care of minor children is a relevant consideration.

The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC does not confer an unfettered right on either party to select the forum, and unsupported allegations of prejudice, threat, or fabrication cannot outweigh established circumstances relevant to convenience and the ends of justice.

The Court found that five connected proceedings involving the parties were already pending before, or triable by, the Rohini Courts, making transfer conducive to the orderly and convenient prosecution of related litigation.

The petitioner’s residence near Pooth Khurd and her responsibility for two minor daughters created a substantial inconvenience in attending proceedings at Dwarka.

Although the respondent alleged a threat at Rohini and questioned the petitioner’s residence, he produced no supporting documents and had not properly pleaded these objections in his written submissions.

The Court further held that transfer would not operate exclusively to the petitioner’s advantage because the respondent was also required to contest several proceedings at Rohini. His assertion that he should be permitted to choose the forum was therefore rejected.

HMA No. 1316/2025, Aman v. Ravina Dahiya, was transferred from the Family Court, South-West District, Dwarka, to the Family Court, North-West District, Rohini, at the stage at which it stood.

The Dwarka Family Court was directed to transmit the complete record to the Rohini Family Court within four weeks.

The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.