Gujarat High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceFamily Law

Wife Facing 400-Km Journey Wins Transfer Of Husband’s Family Suit From Surat To Jasdan: Gujarat HC

RASHAMI W/O RONAKBHAI PADAMANI D/O LIMBABHAI NATHUBHAI PANSURIYAv.RONAKBHAI RAMESHBHAI PADAMANI

Wife Facing 400-Km Journey Wins Transfer Of Husband’s Family Suit From Surat To Jasdan: Gujarat HC. RASHAMI W/O RONAKBHAI PADAMANI D/O LIMBABHAI NATHUBHAI PANSURIYA vs RONAKBHAI RAMESHBHAI PADAMANI. Gujarat High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether Family Suit No. 937 of 2026 should be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the concerned Court at Jasdan on grounds of the applicant’s hardship and inconvenience.

The court held

The Court allowed the application and directed that Family Suit No. 937 of 2026 be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the concerned Court at Jasdan.

It also directed

It requested that the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending maintenance proceedings be heard by the same Court, and stated that any request for a common hearing date could be considered sympathetically.

The Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), of Family Suit No. 937 of 2026 from the Family Court at Surat to the concerned Court at Jasdan, District Rajkot.

¶ 2

She submitted that she resided at Jasdan, that the distance from Surat was about 400 kilometres, and that attending the Surat proceedings would cause hardship.

¶ 4–4.1

She also had a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending before the Family Court at Jasdan.

¶ 4–4.1

The respondent was served but did not appear, and the applicant’s averments remained uncontroverted.

¶ 3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether Family Suit No. 937 of 2026 should be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the concerned Court at Jasdan on grounds of the applicant’s hardship and inconvenience.

¶ 4–5

ii.2. Whether the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending maintenance proceedings at Jasdan should be heard by the same Court.

¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer a proceeding where transfer is appropriate in the interests of justice.

¶ 6

The Court cited Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, as relevant authorities on transfer of matrimonial proceedings. The judgment does not set out the specific propositions drawn from those precedents.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the applicant lived at Jasdan and that travelling approximately 400 kilometres to attend proceedings at Surat would cause her greater inconvenience than it would cause the respondent.

¶ 3–6

The respondent’s failure to appear meant that these factual assertions remained uncontroverted. Having regard to the cited Supreme Court authorities and the applicant’s pending maintenance proceedings at Jasdan, the Court found transfer appropriate.

¶ 3–6, 8

05Holding

The Court allowed the application and directed that Family Suit No. 937 of 2026 be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the concerned Court at Jasdan.

¶ 7

It requested that the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending maintenance proceedings be heard by the same Court, and stated that any request for a common hearing date could be considered sympathetically.

¶ 8

The Rule was made absolute.

¶ 9
Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF

RASHAMI W/O RONAKBHAI PADAMANI D/O LIMBABHAI NATHUBHAI PANSURIYAvsRONAKBHAI RAMESHBHAI PADAMANI

Gujarat High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment