Transfer of matrimonial proceedings requires substantial grounds demonstrating injustice; mere inconvenience or subsequent actions do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Case No. 1226 of 2023 ( Navin vs. Anjana ), instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, to the competent Family Court at Firozabad.

3. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it transpires that divorce suit bearing Case No.1226 of 2023, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted by the opposite party on 16.05.2023 before the court of Family Judge, Agra.

4. The principal ground urged in support of the transfer application is that the applicant has instituted proceedings under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 24.01.2025 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, as well as proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad on 17.04.2025, which are stated to be pending.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, not disputed that the aforestated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were instituted much subsequent to the institution of the divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Agra.

6. It is well settled that while considering an application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether a genuine hardship, grave inconvenience, or exceptional circumstance has been established warranting transfer in the interest of justice. Mere inconvenience or preference of one party, without substantiating circumstances, does not ipso facto justify transfer of proceedings.

7. The power of transfer vested in this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary in nature and enables the Court, either on the application of a party or suo motu, to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending before a subordinate court. However, such power is not to be exercised mechanically or as a matter of routine, but only upon due and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff, being dominus litis, has the right to choose the forum for institution of proceedings, and such choice ought ordinarily to be respected. Interference with the forum selected by the plaintiff is an exception and not the rule. While considering a prayer for transfer, the Court is required to balance this right against the competing obligation to ensure a fair trial and proper dispensation of justice.

9. The concept of “balance of convenience” is a relevant consideration; however, it cannot be confined to the convenience of one party alone and must encompass the convenience of both parties, witnesses, the suitability of the forum having regard to the nature of evidence, and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

10. The jurisdiction to transfer a case must be exercised with extreme care, caution, and circumspection. Mere inconvenience or relative hardship, though relevant, may not by itself constitute a decisive ground for transfer. The burden squarely lies upon the applicant to establish sufficient, cogent, and compelling grounds demonst