Wife’s greater hardship justifies transferring matrimonial proceedings to her place of residence under Section 24 CPC.

The applicant-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) of Family Suit No. 38 of 2025, instituted by the opponent-husband and pending before the Family Court at Palitana, to the Family Court at Botad

The applicant resided at Botad with her minor child and contended that attending proceedings at Palitana would cause her substantial hardship and inconvenience

She had also instituted proceedings for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and under the Domestic Violence Act before the competent court at Barvala, Botad

Although notice was served on the opponent on 23 June 2026, he did not appear despite sufficient opportunity, including a final opportunity granted on 24 July 2026

The applicant’s averments consequently remained uncontroverted

1. Whether the Family Suit No. 38 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Palitana should be transferred to the Family Court at Botad under Section 24 of the CPC on the ground of the applicant-wife’s hardship and inconvenience

2. Whether, while assessing the comparative inconvenience of the parties, the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant-wife, particularly when related proceedings initiated by her were pending at Botad

The Court applied Section 24 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

In exercising this discretionary power, the Court considered the comparative hardship and inconvenience likely to be suffered by the parties.

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, reflecting the principle that, in matrimonial and family proceedings, the wife’s convenience and the practical difficulties of attending proceedings at a distant forum are relevant considerations

The Court also recognised that the opponent could seek participation through video-conferencing, subject to the requirement of physical presence at particular stages

The Court found that the applicant lived at Botad with her minor child and would face considerable hardship in attending proceedings at Palitana

Her position was strengthened by the fact that she had already initiated maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings at Botad, which the opponent would also have to attend

Since the opponent neither appeared nor controverted these assertions despite service and repeated opportunity, the factual basis for transfer remained unchallenged

Applying the comparative-convenience principles recognised in the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that the inconvenience to the applicant was substantially greater and that the interests of justice warranted transfer in her favour

The Court mitigated any inconvenience to the opponent by permitting him to request online or video-conference participation, unless physical attendance was specifically necessary

The opponent was permitted to seek participation through video-conferencing or online mode, and the Family Court was directed to ordinarily accept such a request unless his physical presence was required at a particular stage.