Transfer is warranted where a primary caregiver’s court access is materially constrained by childcare responsibilities.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Guardianship Petition No. 91/2022 and HMA No. 2414/2025 from the Family Court, District South-West, Dwarka, Delhi, to the Family Court, District South, Saket, Delhi.

The Petitioner submitted that she is a working mother and the primary caregiver of a minor child who attends school until approximately 1:00 p.m. and thereafter remains at a creche in Aya Nagar, where the Petitioner resides in official accommodation.

She contended that her residence, workplace and the child’s creche are situated in and around Aya Nagar, making Saket more convenient than Dwarka.

The Respondent opposed the transfer, stating that the Petitioner had furnished a Dwarka address in the guardianship proceedings and had earlier indicated that she had no objection to the proceedings continuing there.

He further contended that he resides at Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, travels from Kolkata to Delhi for hearings, and would face greater inconvenience if the proceedings were transferred to Saket.

He also relied upon the advanced age and medical condition of his mother, who was likely to be cross-examined, and argued that the transfer would cause delay and was intended to circumvent an order refusing recall of the Respondent as a witness.

The Court applied Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where such transfer is warranted in the interests of justice.

The Court also considered the nature of the underlying proceedings under Sections 7–10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Sections 6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The governing principle was that, in matrimonial transfer matters, the convenience of the parties must be assessed contextually, on the basis of the circumstances of each case, by balancing the competing hardships of both sides.

The Court further recognised that inconvenience to an elderly or medically infirm witness may be addressed through appropriate procedural regulation by the transferee Court.

The Court accepted that the Petitioner’s residence, workplace and the minor child’s school and creche were located in or around Aya Nagar, and that she had to balance court attendance with her responsibilities as the child’s primary caregiver.

Although the Respondent would face some additional inconvenience in travelling to Saket, he admittedly travelled to Delhi only for attending the proceedings; this inconvenience did not outweigh the Petitioner’s demonstrated difficulties.

The Court held that the concerns regarding the Respondent’s mother could be mitigated by the transferee Court by regulating her cross-examination and other proceedings in light of her age and medical condition.

The objection based on delay was rejected because the proceedings were merely being transferred between Family Courts, the records would accompany them, and the transferee Court could proceed from the stage already reached.

The Court also found no sufficient basis to conclude that the transfer petition was filed to circumvent the order refusing recall of the Respondent as a witness; any recall request would remain for determination by the transferee Court in accordance with law.

Guardianship Petition No. 91/2022 and HMA No. 2414/2025 were transferred from the Family Court, District South-West, Dwarka, to the Family Court, District South, Saket.

The Dwarka Family Court was directed to transmit the complete records and documents to the transferee Court within four weeks, after which the matters were to be listed accordingly.

The transfer petition and pending applications, if any, were disposed of in those terms.