Wife Living With 3-Year-Old Gets Husband’s Bhuj Family Suit Transferred To Patan Over 310-Km Distance: Gujarat HC

The opponent-husband instituted Family Suit No. 181 of 2025 before the Family Court at Bhuj–Kachchh.

The applicant-wife, who lived at Patan with the parties’ three-year-old child, sought transfer of the suit to Patan, stating that Bhuj was about 310 kilometres away and that attending proceedings required substantial travel, expense and an overnight stay.

The husband opposed transfer, including on the grounds that the wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was a qualified teacher, and could attend by video conference.

The Court exercised its transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It also considered the wife’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which sought maintenance for her and the minor child, but held that filing that application did not disentitle her from seeking transfer.

The Court referred to 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 authorities relevant to the transfer request.

The judgment does not set out a separate formulation of the principles from those decisions.

The Court found that the wife and child lived at Patan, while Bhuj was approximately 310 kilometres away; attending the proceedings therefore involved about 620 kilometres of return travel and an overnight stay.

It also considered the parties’ disclosed work circumstances: the husband was an interior designer earning a stated monthly salary of Rs. 26,000, and the wife was a primary teacher.

The wife’s Section 24 HMA application did not defeat her transfer request, as she had also raised the travel hardship in that proceeding.

In view of these circumstances and the cited authorities, the Court allowed transfer.

It requested that the transferred suit and the wife’s pending maintenance proceedings be heard by the same court, and stated that a request for common hearing dates may be considered sympathetically.

The husband may seek to participate by video conference, subject to the court’s assessment of whether physical presence is required.

Rule was made absolute.