Wife's convenience and existing litigation at her residence justify transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The parties were married on April 26, 2024, but the applicant (wife) alleges she was evicted from the matrimonial home following dowry-related harassment in July 2024.

The applicant subsequently moved to her parents' residence in Khargone and filed a domestic violence (DV) petition against the respondent (husband) in January 2025.

In response, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in Kannod, District Dewas.

The applicant filed the present miscellaneous civil case seeking to transfer the HMA proceedings from Kannod to Khargone, citing a travel distance of 190 kilometers, lack of financial independence, and safety concerns.

1. Whether the matrimonial dispute pending in the Court of the First District Judge, Kannod, should be transferred to Khargone under Section 24 of the CPC based on the convenience of the wife.

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

The court relied on the established judicial principle that in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife must be given paramount consideration.

The court distinguished the precedents of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) and Deepa Kuttapan v. Anil Rajan (2007), noting that transfer may be declined only if the husband provides travel expenses or if no prior proceedings are pending in the wife's jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant is a young woman without an independent income, residing 190 kilometers away from the current court venue.

The court reasoned that forcing the applicant to travel this distance would impose an undue financial burden and impede her ability to defend the case effectively.

Importantly, the court observed that since the respondent is already appearing in Khargone for the pre-existing DV Act proceedings, transferring the HMA case to the same district would not cause him "insurmountable prejudice".

The court rejected the respondent's reliance on case law, noting that unlike those precedents, the respondent here made no offer to subsidize the wife’s travel costs.

The application was allowed, and the court ordered the transfer of Case No. RCSHM No. 43/2025 from the Court of the First District Judge, Kannod, to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Khargone.

The transferee court was authorized to either hear the matter or assign it to a competent jurisdiction within the district.