Wife’s convenience and comparative hardship warranted transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to her place of residence.

The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceeding, C.P. No. 408 of 2024, instituted by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Family Court, Bhadrak to the Family Court, Balasore.

The wife alleged that she had been deserted, had no independent income, and was residing with her parents along with her younger son. She claimed that the husband, a retired army personnel with income from pension and other sources, was not regularly paying maintenance.

The wife had also instituted D.V. Case No. 278 of 2023 before the J.M.F.C., Soro, and CRP No. 202 of 2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Balasore. She contended that travelling approximately 60 kilometres from her parental residence to Bhadrak, particularly with her minor child and without adequate financial support, caused substantial hardship.

The husband opposed the transfer, alleging that the wife was financially capable of giving home tuition, was not cooperating with the Bhadrak proceedings, and that transfer to Balasore would cause him greater difficulty because of the distance.

During the proceedings, the husband handed over a cheque for Rs.35,000 towards alleged up-to-date maintenance pursuant to the Court’s direction.

The wife’s application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act had earlier resulted in an order for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000 and litigation expenses of Rs.8,000, though the wife alleged that only Rs.13,000 had initially been paid.

1. Whether the petitioner-wife established sufficient and bona fide hardship warranting transfer of C.P. No. 408 of 2024 from the Family Court, Bhadrak to the Family Court, Balasore in the interests of justice?

2. Whether the hardship of either party could be adequately addressed through alternative safeguards, including virtual appearance or exemption from personal appearance, and, if so, what directions would secure the ends of justice?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a proceeding may be transferred where such transfer is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

In matrimonial matters, although the wife’s convenience is an important consideration, the Court must assess the facts of each case and balance the comparative hardship of both parties. Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court held that relevant considerations include the parties’ economic condition, social background, standard of living, circumstances of livelihood, and the source of their sustenance; ordinarily, in the prevailing socio-economic conditions, the wife’s convenience should receive predominant consideration.

The Court also considered the possibility of virtual appearance and exemption from personal appearance as safeguards to mitigate the respondent-husband’s difficulty.

The Court found that the wife’s asserted hardship was supported by the relevant circumstances: her lack of independent income, residence with her aged parents, responsibility for her younger son, the distance between her residence and Bhadrak, and the pendency of a connected maintenance proceeding before the Family Court, Balasore.

The husband’s objection based on distance was not regarded as determinative, particularly because he was financially better placed and was already appearing in the maintenance proceeding at Balasore.

The Court distinguished Chinmayee Behera v. Binod Kumar Jena, observing that the decision turned on its particular facts and did not displace the general principle that the wife’s convenience is ordinarily given substantial weight in matrimonial transfer matters.

At the same time, to address the husband’s inconvenience, the Court directed that both parties could seek virtual appearance before the Family Court, Balasore, except when physical presence was necessary for effective adjudication, particularly during examination or cross-examination of witnesses.

The Family Court, Bhadrak was directed to transmit the record in C.P. No. 408 of 2024 to the Family Court, Balasore, preferably within one week of production of the certified copy of the judgment.

The Family Court, Balasore was directed to re-register the proceeding, if necessary, and list it alongside CRP No. 202 of 2025 for simultaneous hearing.

Both parties were permitted to appear virtually where physical attendance caused difficulty, subject to the Court’s discretion and applicable rules.

The parties were directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and cooperate for early disposal of both proceedings, preferably by the end of March 2027.

The transfer petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, and the interim order dated 24 December 2025 was vacated.