Facts
The petitioner (wife) and the opposite party (husband) have been separated since October 2015
Source reference: para. 2The husband filed a divorce suit (Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2025) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mayabunder
Source reference: para. 1, 35The wife subsequently filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, in the Family Court at Port Blair, which the husband is currently contesting
Source reference: para. 3The wife moved the High Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking transfer of the divorce suit from Mayabunder to Port Blair, citing the prohibitive distance, lack of secure accommodation as a lone lady in Mayabunder, financial constraints, and concerns for her safety
Source reference: paras. 4-7The husband opposed the transfer, citing his resident ailing mother and the convenience of witnesses in Mayabunder
Source reference: para. 12Issues
1. Whether the divorce suit filed by the husband at Mayabunder should be transferred to Port Blair under Section 24 of the CPC based on the convenience and security of the wife.
Source reference: paras. 1, 23, 322. Whether modern alternatives like video conferencing and the husband’s offer to bear travel expenses sufficiently mitigate the wife's inconvenience to preclude a transfer.
Source reference: paras. 14, 27, 28Law Applied
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the general power of transfer
Source reference: para. 1In matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife is the paramount consideration, established in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) and Kirti Singh v. Dhananjay Lakshmikant Singh
Source reference: paras. 8-10The principle from Pampa Banerjee v. Mridul Banerjee regarding "relevant considerations" such as distance
Source reference: para. 10Distinguished Smt Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya, noting that technological infrastructure (network/electricity) in the Islands is not yet seamless enough to replace physical proceedings
Source reference: paras. 16, 28, 31Reasoning
The Court found the distance between Mayabunder and Port Blair to be "prohibitive," necessitating overnight stays which raised genuine safety concerns for the wife, given the acrimonious nature of the separation
Source reference: paras. 23-24The Court rejected the husband’s offer to pay for lodging, noting it was an "unfair bargain" to force a wife to stay in husband-arranged accommodation during a divorce
Source reference: para. 24While the husband cited his ailing mother, the Court observed that the husband holds a transferable government job, meaning his own convenience is subject to future postings
Source reference: para. 29The husband is already appearing in Port Blair for maintenance proceedings; thus, adding the divorce suit to the same jurisdiction causes him less prejudice than the wife would suffer traveling to Mayabunder
Source reference: para. 32The Court also noted that video conferencing remains unreliable due to a "social divide" in internet access and practical difficulties in cross-examination
Source reference: para. 28Holding
The Court held that the wife’s apprehension regarding security and the physical/financial burden of travel outweighed the husband’s concerns regarding witness convenience
The Court allowed the petition and directed the transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 2025 from the Additional District Judge, Mayabunder, to the Family Judge at Port Blair, including the transmission of trial records and ordering the petitioner to bear special messenger costs
Source reference: paras. 35-37Original Court PDF
K SANKEETHAvsSEVUGA MURTHY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in