Wife’s convenience prevails in matrimonial transfer petition where husband defaults on maintenance and remains incarcerated.

The applicant (wife) sought the transfer of a matrimonial suit, Family Suit No. 1739 of 2025, from the Family Court in Ahmedabad to the Family Court in Surendranagar.

The applicant currently resides with her parents in Surendranagar.

She argued that traveling a distance of over 125 kilometers to attend proceedings in Ahmedabad would cause significant hardship and inconvenience.

She submitted that she is not receiving maintenance from the opponent (husband), despite a court order, and that she has a separate criminal proceeding pending against him in Surendranagar.

The opponent is currently incarcerated due to non-payment of maintenance arrears.

1. Whether the matrimonial proceedings should be transferred from Ahmedabad to Surendranagar based on the personal and financial hardships faced by the applicant.

2. Whether the opponent should be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings via video conferencing due to his current circumstances.

The court exercised its discretionary powers under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the transfer of matrimonial disputes.

The court prioritized the convenience of the wife, particularly in instances where financial hardship exists due to the non-payment of maintenance and the physical distance between jurisdictions.

It further integrated modern procedural flexibility by considering the use of video conferencing for the opponent to ensure fair access to justice.

The Court balanced the applicant's grievances against the opponent's current status and noted that the applicant's claims regarding the distance and her lack of financial support remained uncontroverted as no formal reply was filed.

The Court found merit in the applicant's argument that attending court in a distant city without receiving maintenance was "cumbersome".

Regarding the opponent, the Court acknowledged his inability to clear maintenance arrears and his resulting imprisonment, reasoning that the use of technology would allow him to participate in the proceedings from a distance.

The Court further ordered that the transferee court in Surendranagar shall permit the opponent to attend proceedings via video conference, except for when his physical presence is strictly necessary for cross-examination or other specific procedural requirements.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.