The resolution of jurisdictional issues in divorce proceedings is best determined by the trial court based on factual disputes; mere inconvenience does not warrant a transfer.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

[1] Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Parveen, the learned counsel for the respondent.

[2] This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the petitioner, Smt. Sukanya Baruah, praying for transfer of F.C.(Civil) Case No.1145/2025, filed by the respondent, who is her husband, seeking divorce from her, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 at Guwahati, to the court of District Judge at Dibrugarh, Assam.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant transfer application, in brief, are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 09.07.2015 at Dibrugarh, under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954. The marriage was followed by a wedding reception at Dibrugarh on 10.07.2015, as well as another wedding reception organized at Guwahati on 12.07.2015. After their marriage, both the parties lived together as a couple in Singapore and thereafter in the United States of America. It is contended by the petitioner in her application that the respondent has been employed with CBRE in Dallas, Texas since October 2021 and the petitioner accompanied him on a L-2 dependent Visa. It is also contended by the petitioner that she has resigned from her independent employment at Amazon Singapore for the sake of a stable married life, with the respondent, in the United States of America.

[4] It is further contended that the respondent willfully deserted the petitioner on 22.08.2025, leaving her alone in a foreign country, in a state of financial, emotional and legal vulnerability. Thereafter, the respondent instituted a divorce suit before the Principal Judge Family Court No.1, Kamrup (Metro), which was registered as F.C.(Civil) Case No. 1145/2025. Thereafter, on 17.10.2025, the petitioner had to return to her paternal home at Dibrugarh from the United States of America. It is also contended that she is unemployed and financially dependent and struggling to recover from humiliation and emotional distress caused by the respondent.

[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is presently unemployed and staying with her parents in Dibrugarh and is dependent on her parents for her sustenance and it would be extremely difficult on her part to travel from Dibrugarh to Guwahati to attend the divorce proceeding instituted by the respondent at Guwahati.

[6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the distance between Guwahati to Dibrugarh is more than 445 kilometers, involving about 10 to 12 hours of road travel for one way, as such, attending the divorce proceedings at Guwahati would be extremely onerous on the part of the petitioner.

[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the marriage between the parties was conducted in Dibrugarh and the paternal home of the petitioner is at Dibrugarh where she is presently residing permanently, it is the Dibrugarh Court which has the jurisdiction to try this divorce proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Family Court at Guwahati does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the divorce case filed by the respondent in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He submits that the respondent had deserted the petitioner by leaving her alone in the United States of America and had come to Guwahati only for the purpose of filing the divorce suit. Hence, he