Wife’s convenience is the primary factor for transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC.

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on July 11, 2024.

Following matrimonial disputes, the petitioner moved to her parental home in Durg.

The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (H.M.A. No. 733/2025) before the Family Court in Bilaspur.

The petitioner, who has already initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 144 of the BNSS in Durg, sought the transfer of the Bilaspur case to Durg, citing severe hardship and travel inconvenience.

The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing that he would face similar hardship traveling from Bilaspur to Durg and that mere inconvenience is insufficient grounds for transfer.

Whether the matrimonial proceedings (H.M.A. No. 733/2025) pending before the Family Court, Bilaspur should be transferred to the Family Court, Durg based on the petitioner's convenience?

The Court primarily applied the cardinal principles governing Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that transfers be made when the "ends of justice" demand it.

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

Additionally, the court noted the practice of avoiding multiplicity of trials and conflicting decisions when multiple proceedings between the same parties are pending in different jurisdictions.

The Court distinguishes this from the respondent's cited precedents, *Anindita Das v. Srijit Das* and *Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma*, which argued that mere inconvenience is not a ground for transfer.

The Court analyzed the socio-economic paradigm of Indian society, noting that the wife's convenience takes precedence in matrimonial transfer pleas.

It observed that the petitioner is already pursuing legal remedies in Durg (Domestic Violence and BNSS proceedings), and requiring her to travel to Bilaspur for the respondent's Section 9 petition would impose significant hardship.

Applying the principle of judicial economy, the Court determined that since multiple proceedings are already pending in Durg, it is desirable to have the matters heard in the same vicinity to avoid conflicting decisions.

To balance the respondent's hardships, the Court allowed him the flexibility of virtual participation.

It ordered the transfer of H.M.A. No. 733/2025 from the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, to the Family Court Durg.

To mitigate the respondent's inconvenience, the Court granted him liberty to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing unless otherwise directed.

Both parties were directed to appear before the Family Court Durg on April 8, 2026.