Transfer of matrimonial suit granted due to wife's financial hardship, childcare responsibilities, and pending cross-proceedings.

The applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of Family Suit No. 1698 of 2025 from the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Family Court at Mehsana

The applicant currently resides with her parents in Mehsana and has already instituted maintenance proceedings (Criminal Misc. Application No. 21 of 2025) against the opponent (husband) in Mehsana

The opponent opposed the transfer, arguing that the applicant is educated, can attend via video conferencing, and resides near a transport depot

The applicant highlighted significant hardships, including the 75km distance between the cities, the care of a minor five-year-old son, and the responsibility of a brother suffering from Cerebral Palsy

Whether the Family Suit No. 1698 of 2025 should be transferred from Ahmedabad to Mehsana based on the hardships faced by the applicant-wife.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants discretionary power to the High Court to transfer suits

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), which emphasize prioritizing the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer petitions

The Court analyzed the comparative hardships and found that the applicant’s circumstances—lack of regular maintenance, the duty to care for a minor child, and the care of a disabled sibling—constituted sufficient grounds for transfer

The Court noted that since maintenance proceedings were already pending in Mehsana, transferring the matrimonial suit would allow both matters to be heard in the same jurisdiction, ensuring judicial efficiency

While the opponent suggested video conferencing, the Court observed that the opponent did not demonstrate any personal inability to attend proceedings in Mehsana via the same means

Consequently, the Court determined that the inconvenience to the wife far outweighed that of the husband

The Principal Judge, Mehsana, was requested to ensure the suit is heard by the same court presiding over the pending maintenance proceedings

The Court further granted the opponent liberty to request participation via video conferencing, which the trial court may consider unless physical presence is strictly required

Rule was made absolute