Wife In Ahmedabad With 4-Year-Old: Gujarat HC Transfers Husband’s Vadodara Family Suit To Ahmedabad, Where Her Maintenance And Domestic Violence Cases Are Pending

The applicant-wife sought transfer of Family Suit No. 470 of 2026, instituted by her husband and pending before the Family Court at Vadodara, to Ahmedabad, where she resided with their four-year-old child.

Her application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act were also pending in Ahmedabad.

The Court had earlier transferred a family suit instituted by the husband from Vadodara to Ahmedabad, but the husband subsequently withdrew it.

The husband filed no reply to the present application, and his counsel was absent when it was called.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in 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; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, as authorities relevant to the exercise of discretion in a transfer application.

The judgment does not set out the specific propositions drawn from those decisions or identify a statutory transfer provision.

Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act are mentioned as the basis of proceedings already pending in Ahmedabad, not as the source of the transfer power.

The Court accepted the applicant’s uncontroverted account that she lived in Ahmedabad with a young child and had related proceedings pending there.

It also considered the prior transfer of the husband’s family suit to Ahmedabad and its subsequent withdrawal by him.

In the absence of a reply controverting the application, the Court found no serious opposition and relied on the cited Supreme Court authorities in exercising its discretion to transfer the current suit.

To facilitate the proceedings after transfer, it requested that the transferred suit and the applicant’s pending suit be heard by the same court where possible, and provided for the husband to seek a common date or appear by video conference, subject to any requirement of physical presence.

It requested that the transferred suit and the applicant’s suit pending in Ahmedabad be heard by the same court, and permitted the husband to seek a common hearing date and video-conference participation, subject to the court’s discretion and any need for his physical presence.

Rule was made absolute.