Transfer of Matrimonial Cases to Neutral Venue Permissible where Distance Prejudices Both Parties Notwithstanding Gender-Neutrality Trends

The applicant (wife) sought the transfer of two matrimonial cases—one for restitution of conjugal rights filed in 2021 and another for divorce filed in 2025—from the Trial and Family Courts in Satna to Datia.

The applicant, an unemployed doctor residing at her maternal home in Jhansi, argued that Satna is difficult to reach and lacks convenient transport from her residence.

Procedurally, a previous transfer application was denied in 2022, granting her video conferencing rights instead; however, the case later proceeded ex-parte against her, leading to an appeal and subsequent remand for fresh adjudication.

The respondent (husband) currently works in Vidisha.

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending in Satna should be transferred to Datia based on the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice.

2. Whether the current legal standard for transferring matrimonial disputes remains focused solely on the wife’s convenience or has shifted toward a gender-neutral approach.

The court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits.

It also considered Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding the underlying substantive matrimonial claims.

The court relied on the principles established in Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya (M.C.C. No. 478 of 2026), which observed that the modern judicial trend in transfer petitions is becoming increasingly gender-neutral rather than focusing exclusively on the wife's convenience.

The court reasoned that while the current legal trend is gender-neutral, the specific geography of this case justified a transfer. Currently, both parties reside hundreds of kilometers away from the courts in Satna.

Transferring the matters to Datia would reduce the husband's travel distance from 400 km to 300 km and significantly reduce the wife’s travel from 300 km to 30 km.

The court further noted that previous attempts to conduct proceedings via video conferencing resulted in ex-parte orders and additional litigation, suggesting that physical proximity to the court would better ensure a fair trial.

The court determined that conducting the trial at a third location (Satna) was not in the interest of either party.

The court directed the Family Court to coordinate identical hearing dates to minimize travel. The holding carries the condition that the husband be permitted to appear via video conferencing for routine hearings, except for mediation, while the wife must appear physically given her proximity to the new venue.