Transfer of matrimonial proceedings granted to wife's place of residence citing distance and pending maintenance litigation.

The applicant (wife) sought the transfer of a family suit initiated by her husband (opponent) from the Family Court in Patan to the Family Court in Vadodara.

The applicant resides in Vadodara and has already initiated maintenance proceedings against the husband in that jurisdiction.

The opponent, currently residing in Australia, filed the original suit in Patan.

The applicant argued that traveling over 200 kilometers one way to attend proceedings in Patan caused significant hardship.

Despite being served, the opponent did not appear before the High Court.

1. Whether the matrimonial suit should be transferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the jurisdiction where the wife resides to mitigate hardship.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of cases.

Judicial precedents set by the Supreme Court in Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2002) and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), which establish that in matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration.

The court found the applicant's claims regarding geographical hardship to be uncontroverted as the opponent failed to appear or contest the application.

Finding that the applicant is based in Vadodara while the husband is abroad, the court noted that the significant distance to Patan created a legitimate obstacle for her.

By referencing established Supreme Court doctrine, the court determined that the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties—particularly the wife—merited the consolidation of legal proceedings in Vadodara, where maintenance litigation was already pending.

The court further directed the Principal Judge in Vadodara to ensure that both the transferred suit and the existing maintenance proceedings are heard by the same court.

The court granted the opponent permission to request common hearing dates and to participate via video conferencing or online mode, provided his physical presence is not legally required for a specific stage of the trial.