Wife’s convenience alone cannot justify transfer without demonstrated substantial hardship under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant, Nidhi, sought transfer of Case No. 431 of 2024, Mohit Kumar v. Nidhi, instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shamli, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Muzaffar Nagar.

She contended that she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her father, an ex-serviceman, and that proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were pending at Muzaffar Nagar.

The opposite party opposed the transfer, submitting that Shamli and Muzaffar Nagar were geographically proximate and that no substantial hardship had been established.

Whether the circumstances pleaded by the applicant constituted sufficient grounds for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer the matrimonial proceedings from Shamli to Muzaffar Nagar.

Whether the applicant’s financial dependence, the pendency of proceedings under Section 144 BNSS at Muzaffar Nagar, and the comparative convenience of the proposed forum demonstrated substantial hardship, prejudice, or impediment to her effective participation in the proceedings at Shamli.

Section 24 CPC confers a discretionary power of transfer to advance the interests of justice, which must be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Although convenience is relevant, particularly in matrimonial proceedings, the Court must balance the convenience of both parties, witnesses, the nature of the proceedings, the distance between the forums, and the requirements of fair adjudication.

Transfer is not warranted merely because another forum is comparatively more convenient; the applicant must demonstrate substantial hardship, prejudice, or a material impediment to effective participation.

The convenience of the wife is an important consideration but is not an inflexible or automatic ground for transfer.

The Court relied on Smt. Anjana Rana v. Navin Singh, Smt. Taruni Tripathi v. Duresh Tripathi, Sadhna Singh v. Mrityunjay Singh, and Smt. Priyanka Maheshwari v. Vaibhav Maheshwari, which emphasize that transfer applications must be assessed cumulatively and not granted mechanically on the basis of inconvenience alone.

The underlying matrimonial proceeding was under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the applicant relied additionally on the pendency of proceedings under Section 144 BNSS.

The Court held that the applicant’s assertion of financial dependence, without material showing the nature or extent of the resulting difficulty in attending proceedings at Shamli, was insufficient to establish substantial hardship.

The pendency of proceedings under Section 144 BNSS at Muzaffar Nagar likewise did not demonstrate that her participation there would materially interfere with her attendance before the Family Court at Shamli.

Shamli and Muzaffar Nagar were geographically proximate, and the applicant produced no evidence of substantial travel difficulty or any circumstance preventing her effective participation at Shamli.

Considering the circumstances cumulatively and balancing the parties’ competing convenience, the Court found no substantial hardship, prejudice, or failure of justice warranting transfer under Section 24 CPC.

The application for transfer was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.