Technological advancements enable matrimonial trial participation via video conferencing as a gender-neutral alternative to case transfer.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the matrimonial case pending at Katni should be transferred to Gwalior based on the convenience of the wife and alleged safety concerns.

The court held

The court dismissed the transfer application, holding that distance alone is insufficient for transfer given the availability of video conferencing.

It also directed

The court granted the applicant liberty to appear before the Family Court, Katni through video conferencing as per the 2020 Rules and noted that the applicant is at liberty to seek the transfer of her Gwalior-based Section 9 case to Katni to be heard alongside the divorce petition.

01Facts

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband), both divorcees, married in 2024. Following disputes in 2025, five cases were instituted: a divorce petition under Section 13 HMA and a dowry harassment FIR at Katni, and three cases (Section 9 HMA, maintenance, and Domestic Violence Act) at Gwalior.

¶ 2, 7, 8

The applicant filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the divorce case from Katni to Gwalior, citing the 400 km distance and potential threats to her life.

¶ 3

The respondent opposed, noting that the applicant is educated, previously employed, and has expressed a desire to reside in the matrimonial home in other pleadings.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the matrimonial case pending at Katni should be transferred to Gwalior based on the convenience of the wife and alleged safety concerns.

¶ 1

ii.2. Whether the availability of modern video conferencing infrastructure mitigates the hardships of distance in matrimonial transfer petitions.

¶ 11-15

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the general power of transfer and Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with the transfer of petitions in certain cases.

¶ 1, 19

The court considered the precedent in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) regarding the limitations of video conferencing in family matters and relied on the District Courts of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audiovisual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020.

¶ 9, 10

The court also noted a shift toward a gender-neutral perspective in transfer cases, citing Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) and Sunaina Vishwakarma v. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma (2023).

¶ 20

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9 Section 13

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that the technological landscape has undergone a "sea change" since the Santhini judgment due to post-COVID infrastructure upgrades. Extensive video conferencing facilities now exist across Madhya Pradesh, allowing for effective remote participation while maintaining confidentiality and safety.

¶ 10, 12-14

Regarding the facts, the court found the applicant’s safety concerns contradictory, as she had expressed an intention to live with the husband at Katni in her Section 9 HMA application.

¶ 19

Furthermore, the divorce petition at Katni was filed prior to her Section 9 application at Gwalior, giving Katni priority under Section 21-A HMA. The court emphasized that modern transfer petitions must be viewed through a gender-neutral lens rather than focusing solely on the wife's convenience.

¶ 17, 19, 20