Wife’s convenience and substantial travel hardship justify transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 1147 of 2023, instituted by the respondent-husband and pending before the Family Court at Vadodara, to the Family Court at Rajkot.

The wife was residing with her parents at Rajkot, while the husband was residing at Vadodara; the distance between the two cities was approximately 300 kilometres one way.

She also had proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending against the husband before the Family Court at Rajkot, and alleged irregular payment of maintenance.

The husband opposed the transfer, alleging that the Rajkot proceedings were filed as a counterblast, that he was the sole earning member of his family, and that he apprehended a threat to his life from the wife’s family.

The Court noted that the couple’s minor son was studying in a hostel and that the husband was already required to attend the proceedings pending at Rajkot.

Whether Family Suit No. 1147 of 2023 should be transferred from the Family Court at Vadodara to the Family Court at Rajkot under Section 24 of the CPC, having regard to the parties’ respective convenience and circumstances.

Whether the husband’s asserted business responsibilities and alleged threat to his life constituted sufficient grounds to refuse the transfer.

Whether the husband could be permitted to participate in the transferred proceedings through video conferencing, subject to the requirements of the proceedings.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require.

It relied on the settled principle that, in matrimonial and family disputes, the convenience and hardship faced by the wife—particularly where she must travel a substantial distance alone—are important considerations: Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479.

The Court also considered the contrary submission based on Deepika alias Tara v. Maruthi Kathare, 2005 (0) AIJEL SC 36176, and the decision in Vipul Chhaganlal Solanki v. Nikita Vipul Solanki.

The Court further recognised the availability of video-conferencing facilities in Family Courts as a means of reducing inconvenience to the transferring party.

The Court found that the wife was residing at Rajkot and would have to travel approximately 300 kilometres one way to attend the proceedings at Vadodara, whereas the husband was already required to attend the wife’s proceedings pending before the Family Court at Rajkot.

Applying the principle that the convenience of a woman is a paramount consideration in matrimonial transfer applications, the Court held that the wife’s hardship outweighed the husband’s general assertion that he was a businessman and sole breadwinner.

The alleged threat to the husband’s life was rejected because no material was produced to establish an actual or credible threat.

The Court also observed that any inconvenience to the husband could be mitigated through video conferencing, except where his physical presence was specifically necessary.

The Rajkot Court was requested to hear the transferred suit and the wife’s pending proceedings before the same court, and to consider sympathetically any request for a common date of hearing.

The husband was permitted to seek participation through video conferencing, subject to the Court’s determination that physical presence was not required at a particular stage.

Rule was made absolute.