Section 24 CPC permits transfer to the wife’s forum where childcare and financial hardship impede attendance.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of Family Suit No. 952 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Vadodara, to the Family Court at Ahmedabad.

The applicant resides at Ahmedabad with the parties’ two minor children, aged approximately 14 years and 3 years.

She submitted that Ahmedabad is more than 100 kilometres from Vadodara, that she was not receiving financial support from the respondent, and that travelling to Vadodara would cause hardship while caring for the children.

She had also instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, at Ahmedabad.

The respondent opposed the transfer, contending that he sought reunion with the applicant and was willing to bear her travelling expenses for attending the Vadodara proceedings.

Whether Family Suit No. 952 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara should be transferred to the Family Court at Ahmedabad under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, considering the applicant’s residence, responsibility for two minor children, financial circumstances, and pending proceedings at Ahmedabad.

Whether the respondent’s offer to bear the applicant’s travelling expenses sufficiently mitigated the hardship and inconvenience of requiring her to attend proceedings at Vadodara.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

It considered the practical hardship faced by a wife who must travel to another city while residing with and caring for minor children, particularly where she lacks financial support from the husband.

The Court also took into account the connected proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

It relied on 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, which recognise convenience, hardship, the wife’s circumstances, and the interests of justice as relevant considerations in transfer applications.

The Court found that the applicant had to reside at Ahmedabad with two minor children and attend her own maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings there, whereas the respondent was already required to attend those proceedings at Ahmedabad.

In the absence of financial assistance from the respondent, requiring the applicant to travel more than 100 kilometres to Vadodara would impose substantially greater hardship and inconvenience on her than the inconvenience faced by the respondent.

The Court therefore held that the respondent’s offer to reimburse travelling expenses did not adequately address the applicant’s practical and caregiving burdens.

Applying the principles in the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Court concluded that transfer would better serve the interests of justice.

The Ahmedabad Family Court was requested, as far as possible, to hear the transferred family suit and the applicant’s maintenance proceedings before the same court and to assign them common dates.

The respondent was permitted to seek appearance through video conferencing or online mode, which the Family Court was directed to allow unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.