Under Section 24 CPC, matrimonial proceedings may be transferred to mitigate the wife’s greater hardship.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 168 of 2026 filed by the opponent-husband before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, to the Family Court at Anand.

She stated that she resided at Anand with her minor child and that attending proceedings at Ahmedabad would cause her considerable hardship.

She had also initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and under the Domestic Violence Act before the competent court at Anand.

Although notice was served on the opponent on 13 July 2026, he did not appear despite sufficient opportunity, including a final opportunity granted on 24 July 2026.

The applicant’s averments therefore remained uncontroverted.

Whether Family Suit No. 168 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad should be transferred to the Family Court at Anand under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the hardship and inconvenience likely to be suffered by the applicant-wife.

Whether the inconvenience to the applicant justified exercising the Court’s discretionary power in her favour, while permitting the opponent to participate through video-conferencing where appropriate.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings from one competent court to another where the interests of justice so require.

In matrimonial and family proceedings, the Court considered the relative hardship and inconvenience of the parties, particularly the inconvenience faced by the wife in attending proceedings at a distant forum.

It relied on 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, concerning the exercise of transfer jurisdiction in matrimonial matters with due regard to the wife’s convenience.

The Court also directed that the husband could seek participation through video-conferencing, subject to the requirement of physical presence at particular stages.

The Court found that the applicant-wife resided at Anand with her minor child and would face substantial hardship in attending proceedings at Ahmedabad.

Her averments were uncontroverted because the opponent, despite service and repeated opportunity, did not appear.

The existence of the applicant’s related maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings at Anand further supported Anand as a convenient forum, while the opponent would already be required to attend those proceedings.

Balancing the parties’ inconvenience, the Court concluded that the hardship to the applicant was substantially greater and that the interests of justice warranted transfer under Section 24 CPC.

To mitigate inconvenience to the opponent, the Court preserved his option to participate online, except where physical attendance was necessary.

Family Suit No. 168 of 2026 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Anand under Section 24 CPC.

The opponent was permitted to request participation through video-conferencing, which the Family Court was directed to allow unless his physical presence was required at a particular stage.