Unpaid Court-Ordered Travel Costs Leave Wife Unable To Defend Ankleshwar Family Suit, So Gujarat HC Transfers It To Vadodara

The applicant sought transfer of Family Suit No. 142 of 2024 from the Family Court, Ankleshwar, to the Family Court, Vadodara.

The High Court had previously noted that the applicant’s request for travel and other expenses had been allowed by the Family Court, but she said the amounts had not been paid, making travel from Vadodara to Ankleshwar difficult.

The High Court issued Rule and granted interim relief; despite service and a further opportunity to appear, the opponent did not contest the application.

The Court referred to Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, as authorities relevant to the transfer application.

The judgment does not set out a specific statutory provision or articulate a detailed test from those decisions.

The Court relied on its earlier prima facie finding that, because the travel and other expenses ordered by the Family Court had not been paid, the applicant was not in a position to defend the suit at Ankleshwar.

The opponent’s non-appearance left the application’s material averments uncontroverted. Having considered those averments and the cited authorities, the Court accepted the transfer request.

It also left open the possibility of the opponent joining proceedings remotely, while making that subject to the concerned court’s view on whether physical attendance was necessary.

The opponent may request participation by video conference or online mode, which the concerned court may consider unless physical presence is required at a particular stage.