Wife’s convenience is the paramount consideration in transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on 30.11.2022

Alleging physical and mental cruelty, the petitioner left the matrimonial home in 2022 and has since resided with her parents in Kondagaon

The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-क)(ख) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Civil Suit No. 520/2025, before the Family Court in Durg

The petitioner filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case from Durg to Kondagaon, citing a travel distance of 512 km (round trip) and the inability of her elderly father to accompany her

The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing that direct bus connectivity exists and the petitioner is young enough to travel alone

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings (Civil Suit No. 520/2025) should be transferred from the Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Kondagaon based on the convenience of the wife.

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

It relied on the cardinal principle established in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022), which mandates that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife must generally be the primary consideration

Furthermore, the court cited Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi (2005), which reinforce that when a husband files a suit against the wife, her convenience is to be preferred over his

The Court observed that the substantial distance of 512 km (to and fro) between Kondagaon and Durg poses a significant hardship for the petitioner

While the respondent argued that bus connectivity and the petitioner’s age mitigated this, the Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that she lacked a male family member to accompany her, as her father is elderly

Applying the "wife’s convenience" doctrine from N.C.V. Aishwarya and Sumita Singh, the Court reasoned that requiring the petitioner to attend hearings in Durg would be unduly inconvenient

To balance the interests of the respondent, the Court noted that his hardship could be mitigated by allowing his appearance via video conferencing

It directed the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, to transmit the records of Civil Suit No. 520/2025 to the Family Court, Kondagaon within 15 days

The transferee court was directed to decide the matter within four months and was granted the discretion to permit the respondent's appearance through video conferencing if his personal presence is not required

No order as to costs was made