Wife Caring For Minor Child Gets Husband’s Family Suit Shifted From Gandhidham To Dahod Over 425-Km One-Way Journey: Gujarat HC

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Family Suit No. 178 of 2025 from the Family Court at Gandhidham, Kutch, to the concerned court at Dahod.

She stated that she lived at Dahod with the parties’ minor child and that the distance to Gandhidham—approximately 425 km one way—made attending the proceedings difficult.

She had also instituted a Domestic Violence Act proceeding against the opponent at Dahod.

The opponent opposed transfer, offered to pay her travel expenses, asserted that he had cleared maintenance arrears, and cited his responsibility to care for his mother.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings between competent courts.

In considering transfer, the Court assessed the parties’ circumstances and the practical hardship of attending proceedings. It 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, without setting out their specific holdings in the judgment.

The Court considered that the approximately 425 km one-way journey from Dahod to Gandhidham would cause the applicant substantial inconvenience, particularly because she lived with and cared for the parties’ minor child.

The opponent’s offer to meet her travel expenses did not displace that hardship. The Court also noted that the maintenance deposit receipt indicated that maintenance was not being paid regularly, which weighed against the opponent’s position.

As to his responsibility for his mother, the Court considered that he could seek to attend proceedings by video conference, subject to any requirement for his physical presence.

The opponent may request permission to participate by video conference or online mode; the receiving court may allow that request unless his physical presence is required at a particular stage.

The application was allowed in terms of paragraph 12(B), and the Rule was made absolute.