Wife's convenience and dependency prevail in transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC.

The applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of Family Suit No. 910 of 2025 from the Family Court, Vadodara, to the Family Court, Ahmedabad

The applicant resides in Ahmedabad with her parents and has already instituted several proceedings there, including a maintenance claim under Section 144 of the BNSS, a domestic violence complaint, and a criminal complaint under the BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act

The opponent (husband) opposed the transfer, citing a police complaint filed by his brother against the applicant’s family and offering to bear the applicant's travel expenses

1. Whether the Family Suit pending in Vadodara should be transferred to Ahmedabad based on the convenience of the wife and the pendency of multiple related litigations in Ahmedabad

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of cases

Precedential principles established 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), which emphasize prioritizing the convenience and hardship of the wife in matrimonial transfer petitions

The court reasoned that since the applicant is unemployed, receives no maintenance, and is entirely dependent on her parents in Ahmedabad, the hardship and inconvenience caused to her by traveling to Vadodara significantly outweigh those of the opponent

The court observed that the opponent is already required to attend multiple proceedings (maintenance and criminal) in Ahmedabad; thus, transferring the matrimonial suit would allow for the consolidation of matters

The court noted that technological solutions, such as video conferencing, are available for the opponent to participate in the Ahmedabad proceedings, thereby mitigating his inconvenience

To ensure judicial efficiency and prevent conflicting decisions, the court found it "desirable" that all related matters be heard by the same court

The Court directed the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Ahmedabad, to ensure that the transferred suit and the existing maintenance/Domestic Violence proceedings are heard on the same day by the same court. The court also granted the opponent the liberty to request common dates and the use of video conferencing for future hearings unless physical presence is legally required