Wife’s convenience generally prevails when deciding transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The petitioner-husband sought transfer of CRP No. 136 of 2024, instituted by the opposite-party-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, from the Family Court, Jajpur, to the Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

The husband contended that he was a cancer patient undergoing treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, and was employed as a Senior Assistant at IIT, Argul, Bhubaneswar, making travel to Jajpur difficult.

The wife opposed the transfer, asserting that she was a deserted woman without an independent source of income, residing with her aged mother along with their minor child aged four years.

She contended that travelling approximately 120 kilometres from Jajpur to Bhubaneswar would cause her serious hardship.

Whether CRP No. 136 of 2024, pending before the Family Court, Jajpur, ought to be transferred to the Family Court, Bhubaneswar on account of the husband’s medical condition, employment, and alleged difficulty in travelling

Whether, in determining a transfer application in a matrimonial or maintenance proceeding, the wife’s economic and social circumstances and her convenience should receive greater consideration than the husband’s asserted inconvenience

Whether the parties could be permitted to participate through virtual mode as an alternative to transferring the proceeding

The Court applied the settled principle governing transfer petitions in matrimonial matters that the ends of justice must determine whether a proceeding should be transferred, with due consideration to the parties’ economic condition, social circumstances, standard of living, means of livelihood, and sources of support.

Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court reiterated that, given the prevailing socio-economic conditions in India, the wife’s convenience should generally be given primary consideration in matrimonial transfer matters.

The Court also relied on the facility of virtual appearance under the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, while recognising that physical presence may still be required for effective hearings, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

The Court accepted that the husband had referred to his cancer treatment and employment at Bhubaneswar, but noted that his own pleadings stated that he was well after surgery and was leading his life with medication.

Against this, the wife was a financially dependent woman caring for a four-year-old child, with no asserted independent income, and would have to travel approximately 120 kilometres to Bhubaneswar.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience ordinarily commands greater weight in matrimonial transfer matters, the Court found no sufficient ground to transfer the maintenance proceeding from Jajpur to Bhubaneswar.

At the same time, to mitigate the husband’s difficulty in attending proceedings, the Court directed that virtual appearance be permitted where feasible and prayed for, subject to physical attendance when required for effective hearings.

The parties were permitted to seek appearance through virtual mode, with the Family Court, Jajpur directed to facilitate video conferencing in accordance with the applicable Rules; physical presence could nevertheless be ordered for examination, cross-examination, and other effective hearings.

The Family Court, Jajpur was directed to conclude the 2024 maintenance proceeding preferably by the end of December 2026, and both parties were directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the Court.

The interim order dated 22 August 2024 was vacated.