Wife's Financial Hardship and Non-Payment of Maintenance Constitute Valid Grounds for Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings

The applicant (wife) sought the transfer of a family suit (H.M.P. No. 7 of 2025) filed by the opponent (husband) from the Family Court, Halol to the Family Court, Thasra.

The applicant resides in Galteshwar, Kheda district, and argued that the distance of approximately 110 km to Halol causes significant hardship.

Despite a prior settlement in Criminal Misc. Application No. 65 of 2025 where the husband agreed to pay monthly maintenance of ₹4,200, he defaulted for eight months.

A recovery warrant was issued under Section 144(3) of the BNSS by the Thasra Court, and the husband was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 20 days’ imprisonment for non-payment.

1. Whether the applicant-wife is entitled to the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from Halol to Thasra on the grounds of financial hardship and logistical inconvenience.

2. Whether the non-payment of court-ordered maintenance by the husband justifies the transfer of the case to the wife's place of residence.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the general power of transfer.

In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife must be given primary consideration and that hardship to the wife is a valid ground for transfer as established in Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay [AIR 2002 SC 396] and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199].

Procedural enforcement of maintenance under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court found that the applicant’s concerns were "well-founded" as she was not receiving the agreed-upon maintenance, making it difficult for her to bear the costs of traveling 110 km to attend proceedings in Halol.

The court noted the undisputed fact that the husband had willfully defaulted on maintenance payments despite a settlement order from the Thasra Court dated 07.11.2025.

While the husband pleaded unemployment and family responsibilities, offering ₹1,000 as traveling expenses, the court weighed this against the wife's significant hardship and his previous conviction for non-payment.

Applying the ratio from N.C.V. Aishwarya, the court concluded that the inconvenience to the wife outweighed that of the husband.

The court granted the husband the liberty to request participation in the proceedings via video conferencing or online mode, subject to the Family Court's discretion and the necessity of his physical presence at specific stages.

Rule was made absolute.