Wife’s greater hardship and pending proceedings at her residence justify transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 3982 of 2025, instituted by the respondent-husband and pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad, to the Family Court at Nadiad, Kheda.

She stated that she resided at Kheda and that travelling approximately 35 kilometres one way to Ahmedabad would cause her hardship and inconvenience.

The applicant had also instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Nadiad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2024.

The Family Court, Nadiad, partly allowed the application on 2 September 2025 and directed the respondent to pay maintenance.

A further proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1029 of 2024, was pending at Nadiad.

Although notice of the transfer application was served on the respondent on 9 June 2026, he failed to appear despite being granted a final opportunity.

Consequently, the applicant’s averments remained uncontroverted.

Whether Family Suit No. 3982 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Nadiad under Section 24 of the CPC on account of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience?

Whether the applicant’s pending maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings at Nadiad, together with the respondent’s failure to pay the maintenance awarded, justified exercising the Court’s discretionary transfer jurisdiction in her favour?

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

In exercising this discretion in matrimonial matters, the Court considered the relative hardship and inconvenience likely to be suffered by the parties, particularly the wife.

The Court relied on 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; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, recognising the relevance of the wife’s convenience and practical hardship in applications for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court also considered the existence of connected proceedings at Nadiad and the maintenance order passed in favour of the applicant.

The Court found that the applicant resided at Kheda, whereas the respondent had instituted the family suit at Ahmedabad, requiring her to travel approximately 35 kilometres each way to attend the proceedings.

Her hardship was aggravated by the fact that maintenance had been awarded by the Family Court, Nadiad, but had allegedly not been paid by the respondent.

The applicant was also required to pursue domestic-violence proceedings at Nadiad, while the respondent would in any event be required to attend those proceedings there.

Since the respondent had been duly served and had failed to contest the application despite sufficient opportunity, the applicant’s assertions remained uncontroverted.

Applying the principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings and comparing the relative inconvenience of the parties, the Court held that the applicant’s hardship was substantially greater and that the balance of convenience favoured transfer.

Family Suit No. 3982 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad was ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Nadiad, Kheda.

The Court further clarified that the respondent could request permission from the Family Court to participate through video conferencing or online mode, subject to the Court’s discretion and the necessity of his physical presence at any particular stage.