Wife’s convenience and childcare responsibilities prioritize venue transfer in matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on April 16, 2018, and have two minor daughters, aged 5 and 1.5 years

Following matrimonial disputes, the wife moved to her parents' residence in Kotda, Kachchh-Bhuj, and initiated a Divorce Petition (Family Suit No. 27/2025) and maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the BNNS in the Family Court at Bhuj

Subsequently, the husband filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Family Suit No. 248/2025) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Nadiad

The wife sought the transfer of the Nadiad proceedings to Bhuj, citing the 400 km travel distance and her responsibility to care for two minor children

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings filed by the husband in Nadiad should be transferred to the Family Court in Bhuj @ Kachchh under Section 24 of the CPC

The court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants discretionary power to the High Court to transfer suits

It relied on the precedent set in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, which establishes that in transfer applications regarding matrimonial disputes, the wife’s inconvenience and circumstances must be given due importance

The court noted the transition to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 144) regarding maintenance proceedings

The court found that the applicant, as a lady residing with her parents, faces significant hardship in traveling 400 kilometers (one way) from Bhuj to Nadiad to attend court proceedings

The court emphasized that her responsibility to care for two minor daughters made such travel practically difficult

It was noted that the husband is already defending a divorce suit and maintenance proceedings in Bhuj, and he chose not to contest the present transfer application despite being served notice

Applying the principle from Sumita Singh, the court exercised its discretion in favor of the wife, prioritizing her convenience and financial constraints over the husband's choice of forum

The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying matrimonial dispute