01Facts
The wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of the husband’s Family Suit No. 10 of 2026 from the Family Court, Patan, to the Family Court, Ahmedabad.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3–4She had filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Ahmedabad, and was caring for their five-year-old child.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3–4She also relied on an alleged past assault and a related criminal case.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3–4The husband opposed transfer, referring to cross-complaints and the wife’s participation in a criminal trial at Patan; alternatively, he sought permission to attend proceedings by video conference if the transfer were allowed.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the husband’s family suit pending at Patan should be transferred to the Family Court, Ahmedabad, having regard to the wife’s proceedings there and her responsibility for the minor child.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3–4, 8ii.2. Whether, following transfer, the proceedings could be coordinated and the husband permitted to participate by video conference where appropriate.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 10–1103Law Applied
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings between competent courts.
p. 3 · ¶ 3In considering transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the Court referred to 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; it did not set out their specific principles in detail.
p. 3 · ¶ 7Section 144 of the BNSS and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were mentioned as the bases for the wife’s separate proceedings, rather than as the transfer power.
p. 2 · ¶ 4Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the wife had related proceedings pending in Ahmedabad and was responsible for a five-year-old child.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5, 8It concluded that these circumstances made it desirable to transfer the husband’s suit to Ahmedabad, despite his objections concerning the cross-complaints and the wife’s attendance at trial in Patan.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5, 8The Court also addressed practical coordination: the husband could seek a common hearing date and video-conference participation, subject to the Court’s assessment of whether physical presence was required.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 10–1105Holding
The application was allowed, and Family Suit No. 10 of 2026 was ordered transferred from the Family Court, Patan, to the appropriate court at Ahmedabad.
p. 4 · ¶ 9, 12The Ahmedabad court was requested to consider having the transferred suit and the wife’s pending suit heard by the same court and to consider sympathetically any request for a common date.
p. 4 · ¶ 10–11The husband may seek video-conference participation, unless physical attendance is required at a particular stage.
p. 4 · ¶ 10–11Original Court PDF
HINA W/O ARUNKUMAR PUNAMBHAI PATNI AND D/O RAJESHBHAI PATNIvsARUN KUMAR PUNAMBHAI PATNI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
