Section 24 CPC permits transferring matrimonial proceedings when the wife faces substantially greater hardship.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 105 of 2026, instituted by the respondent-husband before the Family Court at Vadodara, to the Family Court at Anand.

Notice was served on the respondent on 15 May 2026; however, despite repeated opportunities, he neither filed a reply nor appeared to oppose the application.

The applicant submitted that she was not receiving maintenance from the respondent despite an order of the competent court, and that recovery proceedings were pending against him before the Family Court at Anand.

She further stated that her mother and brother were mentally disabled to the extent of 75%, that she was required to care for them, and that the absence of financial support made it substantially difficult for her to attend proceedings at Vadodara.

1. Whether Family Suit No. 105 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Anand under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience.

2. Whether the comparative inconvenience to the applicant was greater than that likely to be suffered by the respondent, so as to justify exercise of the Court’s discretionary power to transfer the proceedings.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal, or proceeding pending before a subordinate court where the interests of justice so require.

In exercising this discretion, the Court must assess the comparative hardship and inconvenience to the parties.

The Court relied on Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, concerning transfer of matrimonial proceedings with particular regard to the inconvenience faced by the wife.

The Court also recognised that the respondent could seek permission to participate through video conferencing, unless his physical presence was necessary at a particular stage.

The applicant’s assertions regarding non-payment of maintenance, the pending recovery proceedings at Anand, and her responsibility to care for her substantially disabled mother and brother remained uncontroverted because the respondent neither appeared nor filed a reply.

Applying the principles governing transfer under Section 24 CPC and the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court compared the likely inconvenience to both parties and found that the hardship to the applicant in travelling to and attending proceedings at Vadodara was significantly greater.

Since the respondent was already required to attend recovery proceedings at Anand, and could alternatively participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing, the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favoured transfer.

Family Suit No. 105 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Vadodara was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Anand.

The respondent was permitted to request participation through video conferencing, and the Family Court was directed to allow such participation unless his physical presence was required at a particular stage of the proceedings.